REPORT 

of the 

Ohio Goal Mining 

Commission 

to the 

Governor of Ohio 

































REPORT 


of the 

Ohio Coal Mining 
Commission 


Governor of Ohio 



C'OLUMBUS, O ; 

The F. J. Heer Printing Co 
1913 






H* 





\ 


II.0P 9 ,' 

IAN 8 




CouMBus, Ohio, December 17, 1913. 

Hon. James M. Cox, Governor of Ohio. 

* 

Dear Sir: — The Ohio Cb’al Mining Commission, appointed by 
you under the terms of the Joint Resolution adopted by the last session 
of the Legislature “to investigate. and report an equitable method of 
weighing coal at the mines when the employees are to be paid for their 
labor on the basis of weight, measure or quantity and that will at the 
same time be to the best interest of the consumers and protect the coal 
measures of the States”, begs leave to submit the following report. 


3 



PART I —CONSERVATION OF COAL RESOURCES. 


ORIGIN OF COAL. 

It is now generally admitted by geologists and by all scientific men 
who are entitled to give their opinions on the subject that coal was 
originally vegetable matter transformed into its present state by the action 
of water and heat and by the enormous pressure, exerted through long 
ages of the earth’s history, of the over-lying deposits of mud, sand and 
other inorganic material. It is also generally conceded that “the vege¬ 
tation which formed the coal grew where it is now found.”^ 

The nearest analogy to the formation of the coal seams is that of the 
formation of the peat bogs. The vegetation which formed the coal orig¬ 
inally grew on low lands near the sea and at about the sea level, and 
these swamps became gradually covered by sediment brought in from the 
adjacent sea and, at times, by sheets of limestone which grew in the 
waters. As these swamps containing their vegetable deposits gradually 
subsided, new vegetable- growths sprang up on the over-lying mud and 
sand and were in turn covered by sandy deposits and thus formed the 
basis of new seams of coal. The first deposits of mud and sand in the 
course of time changed under pressure to shale and sandstone while the 
vegetable matter in the peat bogs changed to coal. 

The swamps were not everywhere equally deep and vegetation 
formed more rapidly in some parts than in others so that the thickness of 
a seam of coal is by no means uniform. Furthermore, the growth of 
vegetation occasionally ceased for one cause or another and thin layers of 
mud were washed in. In this way were formed the bands of impurities 
frequently found in a given coal seam. 

Coal, it has been said, is transformed vegetable matter. But plant 
growth is itself due to the storing up of sunlight through the agency 
of vegetable cells. Coal is therefore in final analysis merely stored-up 
sun power. Forests and peat bogs are also examples of stored sun 
power but they “shrink into insignificance when compared with the coal 
seams of the geological scale, which represent the forests and the peat 
bogs of earlier ages in the earth’s history.”^ 

“Sir William Dawson estimates that a foot of coal requires for its 
origin the patient growth and slow decay of a hundred of the forests 

^ Edw. Orton, “The Coal Fields of Ohio,” Geological Survey of Ohio, Vol. 
VII, p. 256. 

^ Orton, loc. cit. 265. 


5 




6 


out of which it was formed, for of this vegetable growth only a remnant 
was saved. For many thousands of years, for every foot of coal, we can 
be sure the sun must have poured down its floods of light and heat upon 
these carboniferous swamps. The light and heat were absorbed there 
in the processes of plant growth, were locked up in leaf and stem and 
spore, were buried beneath the sediments of an advancing sea, were con¬ 
verted at last into stone, became a part of the earth’s crust, but still 
retaining their original nature, still containing, literally and truly, the light 
and heat, the poiver of the ages of the early world in which they had 
their birth”.^ 

As this Report is intended to be practical in its nature, for the in¬ 
struction and guidance of law-makers, such a reference as we have just 
made to the origin and nature of coal would be out of place here were 
it not for the lesson which it teaches, viz. that in dealing with a natural 
product like coal the people of Ohio are rapidly exhausting their supplies 
of a mineral which it has taken ages on ages to produce and which can 
only he reproduced by the same slow process. Furthermore, the com¬ 
modity which they are thus rapidly consuming is the one which lies at the 
foundation of our industrial progress. For a century or more the steam 
engine has been the chief• productive instrument in both manufactures 
and transportation. But the steam engine and locomotive would have 
been powerless had it not been for the coal which they have consumed. 
No other fuel or power known to man has ever l^een able, or is now able 
to take the place of coal in these great industries. For some purposes 
wood, oil and natural gas have been substituted for coal but these sub¬ 
stitutes are even shorter lived than the coal deposits. To cpiote again 
the words of that eminent authority, the late Dr. Orton, State Geologist 
and President of the Ohio State University, — ‘‘We are unable to see how 
the world can maintain the astonishing rate of progress which has been 
established within the last fifty years if our coal resources are cut ofl' or 
materially reduced. But coal is not a mineral of indefinite amount, like 
limestone or sandstone or clay. On the contrary, its stocks are sharply • 
limited. This fact, taken in connection with those already named, lays 
upon us the imperative obligation to make every pound of it go as far as it 
can; do all the work of which it is capable.”^ 

COAL RESOURCE.S OF OHIO. 

Having emphasized the need of conserving our coal deposits, let 
us turn our attention next to the question as to what are the coal resources 
of the State of Ohio. 

The coal measures of Ohio are embraced in the great Appalachian 
Coal Field which extends through portions of nine different states and 


® Orton, loc. cit. 265. 
* Orton, loc. cit. 267. 



7 


occupies an area estimated by various writers at from 50,000 to 60,000 
square miles. Something like 10,000 square miles of this area are sit¬ 
uated in Ohio and over one-quarter of the state is underlain with coal¬ 
bearing strata. 

To say, however, that the coal fields of Ohio cover an area of 10,000 
square miles is by no means to say that mineable coal is to be found under 
every one of these 10,000 square miles. There are large areas within the 
general field which, although the rocks go back to the Carboniferous age, 
contain no coal seams whatever. The coal seams either did not form or 
else they were removed by the processes of denudation or oxidation which 
went on for millions of years after the continents had worked their way 
above the level of the sea. 

There are other areas, considerable in size, whicly while they contain 
coal, are deficient in workable seams. The seams are either too thin or 
they have been so broken and filled with impurities that they have no 
economic value and will not justify the expense of working. To say, 
therefore, that Ohio has or did have 10,000 square miles of coal lands 
is an entirely erroneous statement. 

There are within the State of Ohio fifteen or more seams of coal, 
formed in the manner described above, and varying in thickness from a 
mere black mark to a dozen feet. No one of these seams, however, is to 
l)e found in all parts of the ten-thousand-mile area mentioned above. 
Since the coal-bearing area was originally an arm of the sea or gulf around 
the shores of which were formed the swamps which were the nucleuses 
of the coal measures, and since the water in this sea was gradually ex¬ 
pelled by the raising of the floor of the gulf, it does not follow that there 
are fifteen seams of coal, throughout the area, one seam being superim¬ 
posed on top of another. Such a condition of affairs would have given us. 
Dr. Orton thinks, one hundred times as much coal as we possess. It would 
mean that in the centre of this gulf were to be found rich seams of coal 
at very great depth and that the upper seam covered an area equal in 
dimension to that of the entire gulf of which the coal-bearing area was 
formed. The facts, however, do not bear out either of these suppositions. 
Coal is found nowhere in Ohio at a greater depth than six or eight hun¬ 
dred feet, and the width of each seam of coal as we proceed from the 
circumference to the centre of the gulf is only about twenty or thirty 
miles. Some of the seams of coal are found, one above another, the in¬ 
tervening space being filled with sandstone, shales, limestone, iron ore, 
etc. In other cases, however, only the one seam is found, while through- 
our vast portions of the Carboniferous area, as has already been stated, 
no coal whatever is to be found. 




8 


COAL SEAMS OF OHIO. 

There are, according to the late Dr. Orton, from fifteen to eighteen 
fairly persistent coal seams in Ohio which justify mining in either a large 
or small way, but only ten of these seams are really important.° 

The classification of the coal seams of the Appalachian Field was 
originally worked out by Professor Lesley, a Pennsylvania geologist who 
designated each seam by a letter of the alphabet, the letter A being applied 
to the lowest seam. This classification was adopted in Ohio by Professor 
Newberry who, however, designated the seams by numbers, the numeral i 
being applied to what he supposed to be seam A of the Lesley classifica¬ 
tion. It so happened, however, that all the facts as to the Ohio series had 
not yet come to light when Newberry wrote. His system of numbering 
had, however, come into popular use and has continued to be used by the 
mining population. In this way it has happened that some “valuable 
seams were left without a number and again the same number was given 
to different seams and one and the same seam received different num¬ 
bers in different localities.”® 

There is, therefore, a considerable variance between the scientific and 
popular classification of Ohio coals. For the purpose of this Report 
it seems best to adopt the classification and numbers in common use by the 
people living in the coal-mining communities, as these are the numbers 
used in references to the various seams made by witnesses appearing be¬ 
fore the Commission. 

Seam No. i or the Sharon Seam, the lowest seam in Ohio is now 
chiefly mined in Stark county and in Jackson county. Some of the names 
given to this coal as a result of local usage are Brier Hill coal, Massillon 
coal, Wadsworth .coal and Jackson Shaft coal. It is one of the best 
coals of the state, breaks very little in handling, makes little slack and 
always commands a good price. The late Dr. Orton, in his report gave 
it the first rank among Ohio coals. 

It was for twenty-five years in the early days of mining the most 
important seam mined but the seam is now almost exhausted and all of 
the mines operating in this seam are small affairs. The basins in which 
coal is found are of small extent, seldom exceeding two hundred acres. 
In the Massillon field of Stark county shafts of considerable depth are 
required to reach this seam of coal. The coal itself is so hard that 
most miners object to under-cutting it with picks and as the use of 
coal-cutting machines is oftentimes impracticable owing to the hardness 
of the coal and the uneven floor, the coal is usually “shot-off-the solid”, 
as the miners term the practice of blasting down coal which has not 


® Orton, Geological Survey of Ohio, VII, p. 269. 
^Ibid, p. 269. 

Ubih, Vol. V, p. 151. 



9 


been under-cut. The days of coal-mining in this seam are about over 
as the deposits now being mined are nearly exhausted and there is no 
considerable body of this coal of a thickness sufficient to make mining 
worth while which has not already been attacked. 

Seam No. 2 or The Quakertozvn Seam, is found in a thickness suit¬ 
able for mining chiefly in Jackson and Vinton counties, where it is 
locally known as the Jackson Hill coal or the Wellston seam. The coal 
from this seam is of “unusual excellence” and is low in ash. It burns 
up rapidly and therefore requires careful stoking. On account of its 
purity it is in great demand, especially for steam purposes. The coal 
is soft and it therefore breaks easily in handling and tends to mine small. 
However, the nut coal commands a price but little below that of the 
lump coal.® 

Although this seam of coal can not be regarded as one of the im¬ 
portant ones of the state it has been extensively worked at a few points 
during the last forty years and there are still some mines operating in 
this seam. The coal is chiefly consumed within the state or is purchased 
by the railroads for use in locomotives. Owing to its softness it is not 
suitable for the Lake trade. 

Seam No. 3 or The Lower Mereer Coal, is in some places known 
as Blue Limestone or Flint Ridge Cannel coal. It appears in many places 
but there are only a‘ few points at which it offers any encouragement to 
mining even for neighborhood use. Such mining of this coal as does 
take place is for the most part confined to Mahoning and Carroll coun¬ 
ties, and even here only a few thousand tons are produced each year. 
“Where thick enough to justify mining, as far as this factor is con¬ 
cerned, the seam is so mixed with slate, as to be a most unsatisfactory 
fuel. It is safe to say that the Lower Mercer coal will stay in the ground 
until fuel of all sorts becomes more scarce and more valuable than it is 
at the present time.”® 

Other seams of coal which are entirely unprovided for in the popu¬ 
lar classification by numbers are the Upper Mercer (No. 3a) and Tion- 
esta (No. 3b) coals. The Upper Mercer is mined to some extent in 
Vinton county near McArthur, but, like the Lower Mercer, it contains 
so many impurities that at present it can not well enter into competition 
with other coals. The Tionesta seam is mined to a slight extent in 
Tuscarawas-and other counties but the yield is insignificant and the seam 

has little value in Ohio. 

Seam No. 4. There is some difference of opinion as to whether we 
should apply the number 4 to the Clarion seam or to the Brookville 
seam—two entirely distinct seams. 


* Orton, op. cit. VII, 274. 
^ Orton, op. cit. VII, 275. 






lO 

The Clarion or Ferriferous limestone coal is mined in Vinton, 
Jackson, Gallia and northern Lawrence counties, where it is regarded 
as an important source of fuel for both domestic and steam purposes. 
It breaks easily and is not suited for shipment to distant markets. 

The Brookville coal is mined in a small way in Stark county and 
perhaps elsewhere. It is used chiefly for steam purposes. “It adds 
so little to our fuel resources that it would scarcely be missed if it were 
dropped from the scale. 

Seam No. 5, or The Lower Kittanning Coal. This is a fairly import¬ 
ant seam and is mined in many localities where it is known by various 
local names. In northern Columbiana county it is known as the Leetonia 
Coking coal and makes excellent coke. In southern Columbiana and in 
Jefferson counties this coal and the clay which underlies it are frequently 
mined together and the clay is the more valuable of the two. This same 
seam appears in connection with another valuable clay vein in Tuscar¬ 
awas, Carroll, Muskingum and Coshocton counties. 

The quality of this coal varies greatly in the different localities in 
which it is mined. In some places it is relatively free from impurities 
but elsewhere it contains much foreign matter especially sulphur. The 
coal also mines small. It is tender and does not bear handling well. It 
is nevertheless an important seam especially when taken in connection 
with the accompanying clay resources. 

Seam A^o. 6 or The Middle Kittanning.. This is one of the most 
important coal seams in the state. Although it is found and mined in 
many counties and bears many local names, it is in connection with the 
Hocking Valley that this coal is best known in this and other states. 
For many years the production of coal from this seam exceeded that 
from any other seam. Within recent years it has been passed by the 
Pittsburg, or No. 8 seam, which now holds first place among Ohio coals, 
at least as far as the quantity produced is concerned. The thickness of 
this seam of coal in Ohio varies greatly but where mined it- usually 
ranges from four to seven feet in thickness and there are places where 
it runs as high as thirten feet. It bears handling well when it is care¬ 
fully mined and for this reason it has long been an important constituent 
in our Lake trade. 

The chief defect of the Hocking coal is the amount of impurities 
which is found in the seam. There are, separating the three portions or 
“benches” of the seam, bands of slate varying in width from one-half 
inch to four inches. These bands must always be removed as must also 
the bench of “bone coal” which is of such inferior quality that 
at present it is unsaleable in any large quantity. There are also other 
impurities in the coal. To remove these impurities it is necessary to 


Orton, Geological Survey, VII, 27. 



break the coal more or less so that a larger amount of fine coal is made 
than would be necessary if the problem were only to take the coal out 
of the ground. 

The coal from the No. 6 seam is used for a great variety of pur- 
l)oses; for steam generation, for making gas, for iron making and as a 
domestic fuel. For many years its chief use was in the blast furnace but 
since the decline of iron-making in the Hocking Valley, it has found its 
most important market in the Northwest, tO' which it goes by boat from 
the lower lake ports. In the Northwest it is used largely for domestic 
fuel but the railroads are also large purchasers of this coal. As com¬ 
petition in these markets with coal from other states is especially keen, 
it is necessary for the operators in No. 6 to take care to secure a coal 
free from impurities and mined in large lumps, especially if the coal 
is to be used for domestic purposes. 

Another seam of coal not provided for in the popular numerical 
classification is the Lower Freeport (6b). It is extensively worked 
around Steubenville where it is known as Steubenville Shaft coal, near 
New Lisbon, where it is the Whan seam, and in Lawrence county, where 
it is called the Hatcher coal. Around Steubenville it is an excellent coal 
but in Southern Ohio it is nowhere of the highest quality. It does not 
handle well and does not enter into distant markets. 

Seam No. y, or The Upper Freeport. This is the third in import¬ 
ance among Ohio coal seams. Although mined to some extent in other 
counties, the two counties, in which the greatest operations take place are 
Guernsey and Carroll. In thickness this seam is normally from five to 
six feet. It is a good steam coal but does not take high rank among do¬ 
mestic fuels. The seam is seldom pure but contains sandstone channels 
which occasion what the mined terms “wants” or “horsebacks” and which 
interfere with the working of the seam. There is also mixed in with the 
coal slate-partings or binders and oftentimes clay veins. This coal is 
lacking in physical strength and will not stand transportation well. It is 
therefore used mainly for steam production. It is often sold on a mine- 
run basis, although the coal is screened in order to ascertain the amount 
of lump coal which is taken as the basis for determining the miners’ pay. 
Thirty years ago Dr. Orton predicted that in a quarter of a century the 
No. 7 seam would “be in the lead of our coal seams in production”^ but 
this prediction has not been fulfilled and the No. 7 seam is now in third 
place rather than in second place as it was at the time Dr. Orton wrote. 

Seam No. 8, or The Pittsburg Seam. We come now to the most 
important of the Ohio seams, which has only within the last decade 
come to surpass the. numbers 6 and 7 seams in output. There are two 
important and distinct areas in Ohio in which this seam is mined. The 
first is in Belmont and Jefferson counties; the second in IMeigs, Athens 


“ Orton, Geological Survey of Ohio, VII, 281. 




12 


and Morgan counties. Between these two areas there is a break filled 
in with sandstone. 

The Eastern Ohio division of the Pittsburg coal seam has two 
parts, a roof coal and a main coal. The roof coal contains so much 
shale that it is of no commercial value. Between these two parts of the 
seam there is about one foot of fire clay, constituting the dangerous 
“draw-slate”, as the miners term it. When exposed to the air it tends 
to break loose from the overlying coal and it is the fall of this draw- 
slate which is responsible for so many fatal accidents in the Eastern 
Ohio field. 

The main body of coal is “a thoroughly approved steam coal and is 
especially valued for steamboat use because of the readiness with which 
it is kindled. It also ranks high as a domestic fuel, and, taken all in 
all, is a welcome addition to any market. 

Like the No. 6 seam, however, the Pittsburg seam has several bands 
of slate and it requires to be carefully mined in order to remove the 
impurities. It breaks up in blocks of a fair size and bears transporta¬ 
tion fairly well when carefully handled. Like the Hocking coal, it en¬ 
ters largely into the Lake trade and holds its own in competition with 
other coals in this market only when it is properly mined and cleaned. 

The Southern Ohio division of the Pittsburg coal seam is chiefly 
mined in Meigs county under the name of Pomeroy coal. Its main coal 
stratum is only from 42 to 48 inches thick and this alone is mined. 
The Pomeroy coal has long been recognized as a good fuel for steam 
and domestic purposes and at one time it formed the basis on which 
an important salt manufacture was established in the Ohio valley. 

The Pittsburg seam seems likely to be the longest-lived of our 
Ohio seams. Provided that measures are taken to conserve this coal it 
should continue to be mined for many years. 

It should be apparent from this description of the various seams 
of coal that not all coal communities have the same concern in the con¬ 
tinuance of the present screened-coal system. It is true that the screen 
is in general use throughout the state, because the contracts between 
miners and operators are based on the amount of lump coal produced. 
In some districts of the state, however, a change to a mine-run system 
could make but little difference to the operators, for the coal is either 
so hard, as in Seam No. i, for instance, that good marketable coal would 
be produced even on a mine-run basis, or it is so soft that it is not de¬ 
manded for domestic use, and for steam use it is not so important to 
have large lumps. 

It is in the two great mining districts of the state, Eastern Ohio and 
the Hocking Valley, that the adoption of a mine-run system would pre- 


” Orton, loc. at. VII, 286. 



^3 


sent the most serious problem. The coal from these districts, it has been 
said, enters largely into the Lake trade and there meets the competition 
of coals from West Virginia and Kentucky, where the miners are for 
the most part unorganized and where the rates of pay for labor are 
much lower than in Ohio. In many respects the coal from these states 
is superior to the Ohio coals and there is but little difference in the com¬ 
bined lake and rail rates on coal from the Ohio and West Virginia fields. 
On the other hand, the Ohio coals meet the competition of Illinois and 
other Western coals which, while generally inferior to the Ohio coals for 
domestic uses, have an all-rail shipment and are therefore less liable to 
breakage in, transportation. Unless the Ohio coals are carefully mined 
and are reasonably free from impurities they will reach the Northwest 
in a less satisfactory condition than the coal from other fields, and in 
such a keenly competitive field the margin of profit is very low. There 
is great danger, therefore, that unless, under a mine-run system, the 
operators can be guaranteed clean coal mined in such a way as to bear 
transportation in large lumps, the Ohio coals from seams numbers 6 and 
8 would soon be driven out of their most valuable markets. 

METHODS OF MINING AND THE CONSERVATION OF COAL. 

Sufficient was said in the opening paragraphs of this Report to show 
the nature of coal formation and the need that great care be used in min¬ 
ing and using this valuable and apparently even indispensable product, if 
industrial progress is not to be impeded for lack of fuel, and if future 
generations are not to be deprived of the use of one of our most important 
natural resources. 

Even with care, the no-distant future is likely to see the necessity of 
mining thinner veins of coal than are now being mined, of mining coals of 
inferior grade which at present are not being mined because of their 
impurities and low heating values, and of re-opening abandoned mines for 
the sake of extracting the coal which was left in the ground when the 
mine was deserted. While these things are not impossible, they cannot be 
done without a very great increase over the present cost of mining and to 
say that the cost of getting fuel is to increase is the same as saying that the 
cost of conducting industry and transportation as well as the cost of living 
is to increase by at least an equal amount. 

The members of this Commission, as they have gone about in their 
investigations in different parts of the state, have repeatedly had called to 
their attention in a most startling manner the enormous waste of coal 
which is being caused by the present system of mining. They have also 
been convinced by their observations of mining in other states that this 
waste is for the most part unnecessary; that it is possible to mine coal, 
under conditions as difficult as now prevail in Ohio, in a manner which 
tends to bring out all, or nearly all, the coal in the ground, and, while 


H 


it is impossible to prove this point at the present time, it is the belief of 
the members of the Commission that changes can he introduced in the 
methods of mining coal in Ohio which will not only conserve in a large 
measure the coal that is now being left in the ground but which will ac¬ 
complish this result without any considerable permanent increase in the 
cost of mining. 

Article II, Sec. 36 of the Constitution of the State of Ohio, which 
was recently adopted by a vote of the people of this state, authorizes the 
legislature to enact laws necessary to preserve the natural resources of the 
state. 

The Joint Resolution creating this Commission instructed us tO' con¬ 
sider, among other things, what influence an equitable method of weighing 
coal at the mines would have on the question of the conservation of the 
coal measures of the state. We believe that there is a very close and 
necessary connection between the system of weighing coal and paying for 
the labor of producing it and the methods of mining employed, and we 
hope later in this Report to be able to show that this is true. That the 
question of conservation is directly dependent on the methods of mining 
employed we shall now undertake to- prove. 

While we appreciate that it is only by a very liberal interpretation of 
the scope of the investigation laid down for this Commission by the Joint 
Resolution authorizing its appointment that the whole question of conser¬ 
vation is taken up in this Report, we feel that we should be derelict in our 
duties if we did not bring to the attention of the Governor and through 
him to the Legislature what we have learned with regard to the waste of 
coal now going on in this state and the possibility of preventing this waste 
by adopting systems of mining elsewhere found successful in preventing 
such waste. 

We have had occasion several times to quote from the reports of the 
late Dr. Orton, made, in his capacity as State Geologist. No one appre¬ 
ciated better than he did the enormous waste of our fuel which was going 
on at the time he wrote, and no one has written stronger words of warn¬ 
ing concerning the dangers which we are facing from this source. “We 
are guilty,” he says, “of the grossest and most reckless waste in all our 
dealings with coal, in mining, in marketing, and in utilization. The treat¬ 
ment that this precious form of wealth is receiving at our hands is a dis¬ 
grace to our civilization.”^^ 

One of the wastes to which Dr. Orton referred is that caused by min¬ 
ing only one seam of coal where there are two or more seams, one above 
the other. One seam is usually inferior to the other, either in the quality 
of the coal or in the thickness of the seam. In such cases only the better 
coal is mined and the other is left in the ground. If the one which is mined 
is the lower seam, the upper seam is soon rendered valueless because the 


“Geological Survey of Ohio, VTI, p. 267. 



15 


roof has fallen in and the upper seam has become broken and so mixed 
with impurities that it will not pay to work it. 

Another source of loss is due to leaving in the ground the upper por¬ 
tion of a thick seam of coal. This is inferior in quality to that which is 
taken out and the operator does not wish to incur the loss resulting from 
the depreciation o'f the value of what is extracted by mining along with it 
the upper portion of the seam. The rejected portion is, however, said Dr. 
Orton, better than the best coal that is produced in the entire coal fields 
of some of our Western states. 

Another source of loss to which Dr. Orton referred, is now, happily, 
passed. This was the waste of the slack or fine coal, which until recent 
years had no marketable value. Even now it is worth much less than the 
lump or the nut of a good size. It is important, therefore, that the coal 
be mined with the utmost care so as to reduce to a minimum the amount 
of slack. 

‘'The greatest loss of all”, says Dr. Orton, “results from the failure 
to take out all the available coal in the operation of mining”.^^ This 
statement is as true today as it was in i8q 3, when Dr. Orton penned it. 
and it is this loss to which the Commission desires to call the attention of 
the Legislature, with the hope of securing a remedy. 

It is not possible to secure a complete remedy for this loss by the 
legislation of one state. In a large degree the loss caused by an improper 
system of mining is due to the low price at which the coal is sold. The 
inferior grades of coal are usually sold in large quantities to large'con¬ 
sumers, especially to the railroads. The price which is received for these 
coals is always low and is oftentimes below the actual cost of ni’ining, if 
the profits of mining have to be derived from this grade alone. The 
situation is the same in other states as it is in Ohio. It is the keen com¬ 
petition to dispose of the fine coal and of the inferior grades of coal 
which makes it possible for the railroads and large manufacturing estab¬ 
lishments to secure their fuel at such low prices. 

Under our drastic anti-trust laws, both national and state, any com¬ 
bination among producers intended to fix prices of coal is illegal and heavy 
penalties are provided for violation of these laws.^ Recent decisions of 
the courts have made possible the strict enforcement of these laws and 
the Federal Government has evinced a strong disposition to enforce them 
against all classes of producers. A number of the witnesses who have 
appeared before this Commission were strongly of the opinion that were 
it possible to permit combinations of producers for the purpose of fixing 
reasonable prices of coal, under the strict supervision of a Federal Com¬ 
mission, following the practice which has been adopted in Germany, it 
would be preferable to the existing conditions which compel the operators 
to secure their profits from the lump coal, thus forcing prices abnormally 


“ Geological Survey of Ohio, VII, p. 268. 



i6 


high on this grade of coal in order tliat it may be possible to dispose of 
the fine coal at the low price which the large consumers are able to secure 
under unregulated competition. 

The Commission believes, however, that it is possible for the State 
Government to provide a remedy in part for existing conditions, viz., so to 
control the system of mining in this state as shall make it possible to get 
all the coal out of the ground. We have already observed that the failure 
to take out all available coal causes the greatest loss under present con¬ 
ditions. 

How this loss occurs is well brought out in the testimony before 
this Commission of Edward Orton, Jr., Dean of the College of Engineer¬ 
ing ‘at the Ohio State University, who succeeded his father as State 
Geologist, and who, in addition to such information as he would naturally 
acquire in his official capacity, has a first-hand knowledge of mining. Fiis 
testimony shows that he has himself worked in and about coal mines and 
that at the time he “had daily familiarity with the operations of the mines 
and with the maps of mines”. In his testimony before the Commission 
(Proceedings of the Ohio Coal Mining Commission, pages 1092-1094), 
Professor Orton describes the situation as follows: 

“I think that if I could summarize my information I would say like 
this, that when I was connected with the mining industry, the amount of 
coal, — the proportion of the coal which was mined there and which was 
taken from the hills and sold—was a low percentage, a lower percentage 
than I thought it ought to be. I think, judging from memory, that the 
maps of the mines with which I was familiar, probably twenty or thirty 
different mines, showed that they had not extracted above sixty percent of 
the coal that they had mined there. I doubt if it was quite that. There 
were many places where there were considerable areas left and the habit 
at that time was to run their entries right ahead, without leaving any 
very large block pillars at any point in the mine, so that they could not 
go to work and draw pillars from areas over which they had finished the 
mining for fear of starting a squeeze on the mine as a whole. The result 
would be that they would hasten to try to work out all available coal from 
that portion of the hill or property, and then if they could, would draw 
the pillars and entry stumps back and in that way would get some return 
of the pillar coal but not a large proportion. Generally the pillar coal 
would be more or less rotted and the roof would oftentimes have started 
to squeeze. Before they would attempt to mine the pillars the posts 
would have rotted and the result would be that the mine would be in a 
bad physical condition to attempt to draw the pillars by the time they 
get back to it. The result would be that they would get very little ]>illar 
coal. That is not always the case but it is generally the case, in my obser¬ 
vation. I have been told that these conditions have been remedied to 
some extent but as I have said I am not now examining mines and do not 


17 


know to what extent that may be true, it was not true at that time that 
they were doing very much in the way. of mining out the pillar coal and 
the pillar coal by actual areal measurements constituted a very consider¬ 
able percentage of the total.” 

lhat conditions have not greatly changed since Professor Orton 
worked in the mines or even since he was State Geologist, is shown by 
the testimony of the present State Geologist, Professor J. A. Bownocker. 
In his testimony before the Commission, in answer to the question as to 
what opinion he could give that might be of value to the Commission in 
the matter of conserving coal, he said, (Proceedings, page 1113), “The 
two things that I have in mind are, first, the working of thinner seams 
of coal where they overlie thicker seams, and that the underlying thicker 
seams be not worked in such a way as may render the overlying seam 
worthless by reason of the rocks falling in below. That is clear of 
course to all coal men. Now the other one is, leaving a smaller propor¬ 
tion of the coal underground. That is a very pressing question.” 

Professor Bownocker gave it as his opinion that from 25 to 35 
percent of the coal in the area mined was at present being left in the 
ground. (Proceedings page 1114). 

Professor Frank A. Ray, Professor of Mining at the Ohio State 
University, and a mining engineer of great experience, gave it as his 
opinion that about 30 or 35 percent of the coal was being left in the 
ground when an area was mined over only once (Proceedings 1146-47). 
Inasmuch, however, as some of the larger companies are now planning 
to go over their territory a second time and take out the pillars as far 
as possible. Professor Ray was inclined to think that on the average 
the amount of coal left in the ground would not exceed 20 percent in 
the Hocking Valley, and slightly more than that in Eastern Ohio, where 
the roof is bad. It should be noticed, however, that Professor Ray’s 
opinion is of necessity based on his experience with large companies 
who employ experienced mining engineers in connection with the oper¬ 
ation of their mines. 

In our travels throughout the state, it was the testimony of most 
men engaged in the operation of mines with whom we talked that in 
the mines which they were operating, as well as in others with which 
they were familiar, from 35 to 40 percent of the coal was left in the 
mines in the shape of pillars, ribs, stumps, etc., and that no plans had 
been made to withdraw these pillars and ribs to any considerable extent. 
At times the percentage of coal left underground in some of the mines 
we visited ran as high as 40, 45, and even 50 percent, and this does not 
include the inferior grade of coal,—the “bone” coal, as the miners term 
the upper stratum which, under the present condition of mining, is in¬ 
tentionally left underground. 


2 


i8 


DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF MINING. 

In order to appreciate properly the possibility of conserving coal in 
Ohio by a change in the methods of mining, it will be necessary to give 
a brief and non-technical description of the various systems of coal-min¬ 
ing which are employed in this state and elsewhere. 

There are four general systems of mining employed in this country, 
all of which have been derived from British practice. 

I. The first system, and the one which at the present time is more 
largely employed in Ohio than any other, is the wide room and narrow 
pillar system. Under this system the mine is laid out by driving from 
two to four entries from the foot of the shaft opening, if it be a shaft 
or slope mine, or from the opening on the side of a hill, if it be a drift 
mine. These entries are known as the main entries and are intended 
both for the transportation of the coal to the surface and for the circula¬ 
tion of air. From the main entries the butt or productive entries are 
driven, either at right angles to or diagonally from the main entries. 
The distance between the butt entries varies with the nature of the seam 
of coal and other conditions. From the butt entries on each side are 
laid ofif rooms or working places. These rooms are usually much wider 
than the pillars left; it being the intention to take out as much coal as 
possible when the mine is gone over and to leave in the pillars only as 
much coal as is necessary to sustain the roof. The width of the pillars 
varies, of course, according to the nature of the roof and the weight of 
the overlying strata. Wherever the coal lies near the surface, relatively 
thin pillars will suffice but wherever it lies to a greater depth under¬ 
ground, as is the case with most of the Ohio coal seams, the amount of 
coal which it is necessary to leave in the pillars is a very considerable 
proportion of the total coal in the area covered. 

If an attempt is made to take out too much of the coal the weight 
of the overlying strata is such that there is produced what miners know 
as a ‘"squeeze”. Either the overlying strata press down upon the pillars, 
crushing them, or the floor “creeps”, producing the same efifect upon the 
pillars. It is very difficult, oftentimes impossible, to prevent either a 
“squeeze” or a “creep”, and even where it is possible, it can be done only 
at a very great expense of timber in addition to the labor cost of putting 
in the posts. 

There are several reasons why it is seldom practicable, under this 
system of mining, to go back and extract or draw the pillars after once 
the mine has been worked over. In the first place, it is extremely dan¬ 
gerous to do so, for any weakening of the support caused by the with¬ 
drawal of the pillars is likely to cause a “squeeze” or “creep” as above 
mentioned. In the second place, the coal which has been left in the pillars 
has been subject to such great pressure that it is in a crushed condition 
when the pillar is drawn and is, therefore, of little value. 


19 


One of the chief defects of the screened-coal system of payment, as 
we shall later see, is the fact that the miners are unwilling to work the 
pillars under present conditions of mining, since they produce so much 
slack in proportion to the amount of lump coal; the miner being paid only 
for the lump coal, under the screened-coal system. 

The amount of coal which can he recovered under the system of 
mining which we have just described will vary greatly, according to the 
thickness of the seam, the nature of the roof and the depth of the mine. 
It very rarely happens that more than 75 per cent of the coal is taken out 
of the mine under this system, and more often in.Ohio the percentage 
would fall to 65 or less. 

Another defect in the system of mining is that the coal left in the 
pillars is subject to deterioration, due to exposure to the air. This of 
course affects only a small portion of the pillars but the proportion is 
naturally much greater in thin pillars than it is in thick ones. 

2. The second system of mining is. the narrozv room and thick pillar 
system. Here the pillars are left of extra thickness and strength, with' 
the object of withdrawing them after the rooms have been finished. In 
this system, after all the rooms have been worked out, the mining pro¬ 
ceeds from the far end of the mine, the pillars being worked back and 
the miners retreating under the protection afforded by the remaining 
pillars. 

It is rarely possible under this system to withdraw all the pillar coal. 
The pillars are usually trimmed down to a narrow width and under favor¬ 
able conditions ninety per cent of the entire seam may in this way be 
' recovered. It is seldom, however, that so large a percentage is obtained. 
In general, probably not more than seventy-five or eierhtv per cent of the 
total coal is secured, although it is obvious that this is a much better 
showing than the fifty-five to seventy-five per cent which is about all 
that is won under the thin pillar system. Many of the best mines in Ohio 
are today being worked under this system of mining, and for this reason 
it is probable that a better showing is being made in the way of extracting 
the coal underground than at the time Dr. Orton wrote the reports to 
which we have referred. 

3. The third system of mining is what is known as the panel system. 
The mine is laid out in large districts or panels, each being several acres 
in extent, and large pillars, known as the “barrier pillars” are left sur¬ 
rounding the area being worked within each panel. The thickness of 
these barrier pillars varies according to the nature of the roof, the area 
to be excavated, and the weight of the covering, but it is not unusual 
for the barrier pillars to have a thickness of two hundred feet or more. 

The heavy barrier pillars tend to prevent the “creeps” or “squeezes” 
so common under the room and pillar system, and they afford protection 
to the miner who is attempting to withdraw the room pillars. 


20 


Under this system of mining, it is usual to drive the main and butt 
entries to the far corner of each panel and to draw the pillars as soon 
as the rooms are exhausted. For purposes of protection, it is also cus¬ 
tomary to leave thicker pillars than are left under the ordinary room and 
pillar system. Indeed it is usual to leave pillars much thicker than the 
width of the rooms themselves. This not only affords protection in min¬ 
ing but leaves the pillar coal in much better condition. In withdrawing 
the pillars the roof is allowed to fall, so that as the work recedes the 
coal is all taken out of the panel and the worked-over area is filled in by 
the falling rock. 

This system is not entirely practicable where the surface is level and 
is very valuable for agricultural purposes. In the State of Illinois, the 
Commission visited several mines worked on the panel system in which 
the pillars had not been withdrawn because the surface was worth from 
S200 to $300 per acre, and if the worked-over area had been allowed to 
subside by the withdrawing of the pillars, it would have made drainage 
very difficult, if not impossible, and would thus have ruined the land for 
agricultural purposes. In a hilly country, however,—and most mining 
districts in Ohio are in the hills,—this objection to the panel system would 
not prevail, for the land surface in our mining districts is not so valuable 
as in Illinois, and even if the surface were affected by the subsidence of 
the mined-over area, there would still be natural drainage and the utility 
of the land would not be affected. 

After the coal has been taken out of a given panel, the barrier pillar 
is itself attacked and is worked out by the retreating system in the same 
way as was practiced in working out the panel itself. 

The greatest economy of the panel system of mining results from the 
fact that under it practically all the coal is taken out of the ground. This 
.system of mining, with the resulting saving in coal, is fully described by 
Professor Ray in his testimony before the Commission. (Proceedings, 
pages 1119 ff). Professor Ray therein describes the work accomplished 
in certain mines which he had laid out on the panel system and in which 
the percentage of coal recovered varied from 89 to 95 per cent of the total 
* coal in the area mined over. 

At Gary, West Virginia, the members of the Commission were shown 
mines being operated by the United States Steel Corporation under leases 
granted by the Pocahontas Coal and Coke Company, in which the panel 
system of mining is being followed and where the percentage of coal 
recovered varies from 90 to 95 per cent. Engineers of the Pocahontas 
Company told us that in some of the mines operated under leases granted 
by them the percentage of coal recovered reached 98 per cent. It was 
the opinion of those members of the Commission who are practical miners 
that the roof conditions and other difficulties connected with mining were 
as bad in some of the mines we inspected at Gary as are to be found 


21 


anywhere in the State of Ohio. It is also the opinion of the members of 
the Commission that there are very few, if any, mines in Ohio which 
could not have been operated successfully under the panel system. It 
would, of course, be impossible to apply this system in its entirety to 
many mines now in operation, although a modification of the system 
might well be adopted in many mines now being operated, so as to make 
possible the recovery of a larger percentage of coal than is now being 
secured. 

According to the testimony of the engineers and superintendents of 
the Gary mines, the cost of operating under the panel system is not in the 
long run more expensive than under the ordinary room and pillar system. 
There is some increase in the expense at the time the mine is opened. It 
is necessary to run the entries farther, but this expense is, of course, more 
than balanced by the gains due to the larger amount of coal taken out. 

If the question now be asked, why have not the operators of Ohio 
voluntarily adopted the panel system of mining, if it would enable them 
to secure a greater percentage of coal from their mines, the answer will 
be found in certain conditions which attend the present system of mining. 

In the first place, among coal operators, as among other classes of 
business men, there is a good deal of inertia. So long as the present 
svstem yields fair profits and their competitors are following the same 
methods, there is not the incentive to adopt a new system, even if the 
advantages which it would ultimately bring are partially realized. 

Furthermore, many coal operators have believed that the panel 
system involves a much greater initial expense than, as a matter of fact, 
is necessary. It has been the belief of many operators that the panel 
.system meant that the entries must be driven to the extreme boundaries 
of a mine before it was possible to begin the working of rooms and 
nillars, and this meant very great expense in driving entries with little 
immediate return in the amount of coal procured. This plan, however, 
is not necessary. All that it is necessary to do is to drive the entries to 
the boundaries of the panel and begin at once working that panel. While 
the rooms and pillars in a given panel are being worked, the enti*y driving 
can proceed to the boundaries of another panel, preparatory to working 
that panel when the first panel has been worked out. 

Probably the main reason, however, for the failure to adopt the panel 
.system of working is due to the nature of the contracts entered into be¬ 
tween operators and miners. Under the panel system, as we have seen, 
the rooms are usually narrow and the pillare are left very thick. The 
contracts between operators and miners call for extra pay for driving 
entries and working narrow places. So long as the operators could avoid 
this extra expense by working wide rooms, they have naturally done so. 
If they were required to work under a different system, they would of 
course endeavor to secure better contracts for the narrow work. Nor 


22 


would this necessarily be to the disadvantage of the miners. It is the 
testimony of the older miners that working the ribs is much easier than 
room cutting. The objection which the present-day miner has to the 
working of the ribs or pillars is that the amount of lump coal which he 
secures is so small a proportion of the total coal mined that he cannot 
earn a normal day’s pay by working pillars. Under a system of working 
heavier pillars, this high percentage of slack or fine coal would not be 
found, and if the system of payment for coal should be changed from 
the present screened-coal basis, the main objection which the miner has 
to working pillars would disappear. There is, therefore, this great inci¬ 
dental advantage which the panel system has over the present wide room 
and narrow pillar system. Not only is there a much larger amount of 
coal taken out of the room but the percentage of lump coal is much greater 
since pillars are not crushed as they are under the wide room and narrow 
pillar system. 

4. There is another system of mining which has high merit, known 
as the long-zvall system. 

Under this system all the coal is mined out as the workings progress. 
This is undoubtedly the best system of mining wherever it is practicable 
to follow it. It is being successfully followed in Northern Illinois at the 
present time and practically all of the coal is taken out of the mines 
oDerated under this system. Inasmuch, however, as it is generally ad¬ 
mitted by practical miners and mine operators that tin’s system could not 
be employed to any considerable extent in Ohio, it is not necessary to 
enter into any description of the method of working mines under the long- 
wall system. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 

The conclusions which the Commission has reached in the study of 
the present methods of mining coal in Ohio are that these methods are 
extremely wasreful of coal and that in the interest of conservation they 
should be changed. Our description of the panel system has been given 
with the view of showing that it is both possible and practicable to adopt 
a system under which, without any permanent increase in the cost of 
operation, a much larger percentage of coal could be taken out of the 
mine than is now being extracted. 

It is not our intention to recommend that any one system of mining 
be directly required by legislation on this subject. Any attempt to write a 
system of mining into the Ohio laws would encounter difficulties due to 
varying conditions in different seams of coal and in different parts of the 
state which would make such laws extremely hard to enforce. Many 
mines now operating could not conform to sucli legislation, and others 
which might be able to conform could do so only at an expense that 
would be out of proportion to the benefits which their owners would 
gain from the adoption of the new system. 


23 


What we do recommend is that the whole system of operating mines 
in Ohio be placed under the direct supervision of the Industrial Commis¬ 
sion of Ohio, and that said Commission be empowered to recpiire that 
such changes in the present system of mining be made as shall lead to the 
greatest possible conservation of our coal resources and to the diminution 
of the num1)er of accidents due to the present system. 

There should, in the opinion of the members of this Commission, l)e 
created under the Industrial Commission of Ohio a Bureau of Mines and 
Mining, made up of men having a thorough knowledge of mining con¬ 
ditions, including one or more mining engineers of wide experience as 
well as one or more men having a thorough knowledge of the practical 
side of mine operations. To this Bureau should be submitted the maps 
and working plans of all mines being operated or to be operated in the 
State of Ohio. The members of this Bureau should make a thorough 
investigation of the plans submitted to them and of the geological and 
other conditions under which the mines must be operated, and they 
should submit plans and recommendations to the Industrial Commission 
intended to place every mine under such conditions as would bring about 
the greatest conservation of coal which is possible under given conditions. 
Due attention should of course be given to the commercial conditions 
under which operators in Ohio are obliged to operate their mines owing 
to the competitive conditions arising from the operation of mines in other 
states. 

These plans and recommendations of the Bureau should be submitted 
not only to the Industrial Commission but also to the owners or opera¬ 
tors of the mine affected. Before any order is issued requiring that a 
given mine be operated on lines laid down by the Bureau of IMines and 
Mining, the operator should be given a hearing before the Commission 
and be allowed to state fully any objections to the adoption of the plans 
proposed or any modifications which he thinks necessary to be made in 
such plans. The objections and possible modifications should be consid¬ 
ered by the Commission before giving its approval or disapproval to the 
plans submitted by the Bureau of Mines and Mining, and its orders 
should cover such modifications or changes as it may seem desirable to 
make in the interest of all parties concerned, the operators and miners as 
well as the consumers of coal. 

Such a system of supervision would be no different from that which 
is now being exercised by the Pocahontas Coal and Coke Company in con¬ 
nection with the leases granted l)y that company to mining companies 
operating on its lands in West Virginia. All.mines must be operated 
under leases which permit such a degree of supervision by the leasing 
company as is necessary to bring out all or substantially all of the coal 
underground. In spite of this supervision, the mines operating under 
these leases are competing successfully, not only with West Virginia 


24 


mines which are not subject to the same restrictions, but also with mines 
in Ohio and other states which, sell their coal in the same markets. 

The companies operating under these leases are also^ doing, in some 
cases at least, everything in their ])ower to prevent accidents to the miners 
and other employes engaged in the mines. Nowhere has this Commission 
seen such elaborate and com])lete precautions taken to prevent accidents 
as are to be found in the mines operated under these leases by the United 
States Steel Corporation at Gary, WestMrginia. At all of the mines of 
this company, the rule that “safety is the first consideration” is constantly 
forced upon the attention of all employes of the company and everything 
which the company can do to prevent accidents is being done. We shall 
have occasion elsewhere in this Report to call attention to some of the 
things being done by the United States Steel Corporation to prevent acci¬ 
dents, and which might well be adopted in Ohio. 

Our present purpose in calling attention to the conditions under 
which this company and other companies are operating mines is to show 
that conservation of coal can be secured in Ohio by means of strict super¬ 
vision of mining operations and that there is no difiference, so far as its 
effect upon the cost of production is concerned, between supervision by a 
private company, leasing its mining properties, and that which could be 
imposed by a State Government interested in preserving its natural re¬ 
sources as well as the health and safety of the laborers working in its 


mines. 


PART II — PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS. 


INCREASE IN NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS. 

The Joint Resolution under which the Ohio Coal Mining Commis¬ 
sion was formed requires the Commission to give some consideration to 
the question of preventing accidents in mining, at least to consider what 
effect a change in the system of weighing and paying for coal would 
have on the number of accidents. 

As in the case of the conservation of coal, the Commission finds 
tl'iat by adopting a liberal interpretation of its powers it is justified in 
calling the attention of the Governor and, through him, of the Legisla¬ 
ture to the need of enacting legislation which would, we believe, lessen 
the number of accidents in Ohio mines. 

It is not our intention to make a complete report on the question 
of accident prevention in coal mines. Most of these matters may well 
be left to the Industrial Commission of Ohio, which has the power to 
im*estigate the causes of accidents and to issue orders, either general 
or local in character, that, if obeyed, will tend to lessen the number of ac¬ 
cidents. The Ohio Coal Mining Commission, nevertheless, feels that it 
would be negligent in the performance of its duties if it did not bring to 
the attention of the Legislature the information.which it has gathered as 
a result of its observations in this state and elsewhere as to the possibility 
of lessening the number of fatal accidents caused by the falling of 
the mine roof. This has a direct relation to the question of mining 
coal under the present screened-coal basis of payment, as we hope later 
to show, and it is still more closely related to the question of changes 
in methods of mining intended to conserve coal, which we have recom¬ 
mended in the earlier part of our Report. 

The adoption of the panel system of mining, since it would eliminate 
the practice of leaving thin pillars to support the dangerous roof, would 
not only conserve the coal but would, we are convinced, lessen the 
danger to the miner through falls of roof and coal. 

During the eleven months, January to November inclusive, of the 
year 1913, there have occurred 157 fatal .accidents in the coal mines of 
Ohio. During the entire twelve months of the year 1912 there were 
only 136 such accidents, and during the year 1911, there were only 109 
fatal accidents. The largest number of fatal accidents in any one year 
in the history of coal mining in this state was in 1910, when there were 
161 such accidents. There was a decrease in the number of accidents 


25 



26 


following that year, which, it was fondly hoped, was due to the changes 
made in the mining legislation as a result of recommendations made 
by the commission appointed to codify the mine laws. Whether or 
not such changes were the cause of the reduction in the number of ac¬ 
cidents during the years 1911 and 1912, we do not know, nor is it our 
purpose here to discuss. It is certain, however, that the year 1913 will 
show a larger number of fatal accidents in Ohio mines than has occur- 
•red in any other year in the history of mining. 

Now most fatal accidents in Ohio mines are due to falls of the 
roof. Out of the 136 fatal accidents occurring in 1912, 93 were due to 
this cause alone. Most of these falls of roof occurred in Eastern Ohio, 
the No. 8 district, where the dangerous draw-slate, to which we have 
already referred in our description of the No. 8 seam, is the chief cause. 

It is the belief of the members of this Commission that most of 
these accidents were preventable and that they would, have been avoided 
if there had been in force in Ohio mines in this district such a set of rules 
as we have seen enforced in the mines of the United States Steel Cor¬ 
poration at Gary, West Virginia, where the conditions of mining are 
not dissimilar to those in Eastern Ohio and where the dangers from 
falling roof are fully as great as are to be found anywhere in this state. 

More than one-half of the fatal accidents in Ohio mines have oc¬ 
curred to men of foreign birth. With the introduction of machinery 
in mines, the business of mining has ceased to be a highly skilled calling. 
It probably would be unfair to speak of mining as an unskilled occupa¬ 
tion ; it would be more nearly the truth to call it semi-skilled work. The 
facts are, however, that men today enter the mines and engage in the 
work’ of shooting down and loading coal who have never been trained 
for this work. Many of them come directly from foreign countries and 
are unfamiliar with our language, and for this reason do not readily 
receive such instruction as would tend to make them aware of the 
dangers which they encounter in their work. Some of the foreign-born 
have been miners in the countries from which they came, and these 
men not only make good miners but are probably fully aware of the 
dangers connected with their calling, since it is a fact that all European 
countries show fewer accidents, in proportion to the number engaged 
in mining, than are shown by the statistics of mine accidents in the Uni¬ 
ted States. Probably the majority of the foreign-born, however, who 
are engaged in Ohio mines have never had experience in mining and 
do not know the dangerous character of the roof under which they are 
working and are, therefore, unlikely to adopt such measures as would 
tend to lessen the danger from this source. 

NEED OF SAFETY FOREMEN. 

Idle greatest defect in connection with the operation of mines in 
Ohio, if we look at the matter from the stand-point of accident-pre- 


27 


vention, seems to be the lack of sufficient and competent supervision of 
and careful instruction to the men engaged at work at the face of the 
coal. On every railroad in this country there is to be found, for every 
few miles of road, a section gang, composed of not more than six or 
eight men, under the direction of a section boss. In the coal mines of 
Ohio, there oftentimes are found many miles of underground workings 
in which are employed one or two hundred men, with only the super¬ 
vision of a mine boss and possibly one or two assistants. Yet mining 
coal is a far more dangerous business than is working on the section of a 
railroad. 

When one recalls the fact that these miners, working in small 
groups, usually only two in a room, are scattered throughout the nu¬ 
merous underground passages, many of them ignorant of the proper 
methods of preventing accidents and left to their own resources, with 
only the most general instructions issued by the superintendent or the 
mine boss to guide them, it is easily understood why there are so many 
fatal accidents in this occupation. 

At Gary, West Virginia, where the rule that “safety is the first con¬ 
sideration” everywhere applies, and where every precaution is taken by 
the company and its officers‘to prevent accidents, the necessity is fully 
realized of providing a sufficient number of mine liosses or assistant 
liosses to have careful supervision of the working places and to make 
explicit the instructions given to the men working therein, so as to pre¬ 
vent accidents. 

Probably the most imi)ortant thing which has been done to prevent 
accidents in the mines at Gary, and the thing which the officials feel has 
been mainly responsible for their success in preventing accidents, is the 
jirovision that for every twenty-five men working at the face of the coal, 
that is, the men who are engaged in drilling the holes for the shots and 
in loading coal which has been blown down, there is employed one assist¬ 
ant boss or safety foreman. It is the business of these foremen to make 
frequent inspections of the working places in the territory to which they 
are assigned; to communicate clearly by oral instruction and by a system 
of chalk marks what is to be done by those working in the rooms to 
lessen the dangers from falling roof and other causes, and to secure the 
best results in the way of output obtainable under these conditions. 

To give one example of some of the things which are being done in 
these mines: it is the rule that no matter what the roof conditions appear 
to be, there must be set a supporting post for every three feet of advance 
in the room, and that the lines of posts must be not farther than six feet 
a])art. It is admitted by the officials that there are cases where so many 
posts are not needed, where the roof is probably sufficiently strong to sup¬ 
port itself with fewer posts, but the officials prefer to err on the side of 
safety and recognize that if the question of setting posts were left to the 
option of the men, oftentimes the men would take risks too dangerous to 


28 


be taken. Hence the company has adopted this arbitrary rule with regard 
to the setting of these posts. It probably is not necessary in all Ohio 
mines to adopt such an arbitrary rule, but the desirability of issuing an 
order of this character to the operators in the Eastern Ohio district is 
respectfully called to the attention of tlie Industrial Commission of Ohio. 

The safety foremen in the Gary mines have instructions to order out 
of a working place any man working therein who refuses to set the posts 
or carry out any other order of the foreman issued for the purpose of 
preventing an accident. The man is not necessarily discharged for re¬ 
fusing to obey an order, but he is not allowed to work in the mine the 
remainder of the day after he has disobeyed the order. 

It seems to the members of this Commission that the State of Ohio 
might very well undertake to be as strict in its laws and orders intended to 
safeguard the lives of its citizens as is this great private corporation. 
The legislature might well enact a law requiring that every mining com¬ 
pany in the State of Ohio which employs thirty-five or more men working 
at the face of the coal in any one mine should employ a safety foreman 
and one additional safety foreman for every twenty-five additional men. 
These safety foremen should be under the direction of the mine superin¬ 
tendent and the other officials of the company but they might well be 
entrusted by the State with police powers to arrest any man working in 
the mine who refuses or neglects to obey orders intended to protect the 
health or safety of the men employed in the mine. Moderate penalties 
in the way of fines should be provided for men who refuse to obey such . 
orders, and it might be well to require that no man should be employed in 
mining who was guilty of a certain number of repetitions of disobedience 
within a stated period of time, — say a month or six weeks. 

These safety foremen should also be required to fire all the shots 
which have been prepared by the men working in the rooms or working 
places which are intended to bring down the coal, or at any rate to super¬ 
vise the firing. This is the practice at Gary. It not only puts the 
business of firing shots in the hands of men who are experienced in this 
matter and who will see to it that before the shots are fired there are no 
men near at hand who might be injured by such explosions, but it also 
has the good result of making it necessary that the safety foreman shall 
actually enter each day every working place in the district of the mine 
assigned to him, in order to see that the rules of the company and his own 
orders are being adhered to. It will be necessary for him to do this, since 
the work of mining can not go on unless the shots are fired when they are 
prepared. Such shots would naturally be fired after the men had quit 
work in the evening, and the rooms would then be free of smoke before 
the men returned to work in the jiiorning. Under present conditions of 
mining it frequently happens that the men leave their shots to be fired in 
the morning and then the rooms and passages are filled with smoke, which 


29 


increases the danger of accidents and makes it difficult to detect the 
impurities in the coal. The practice of having shot firers is not a radical 
innovation. The law now requires this in some states, notably in the 
State of Illinois. \\T were told by Mr. Martin Bolt, Chief Clerk in the 
Mining Department of that State, that the use of shot firers had resulted 
in a lessening of the number of accidents. 

The objection which the operators might naturally make to the rec¬ 
ommendation that a safety foreman be required for every thirty-five men 
employed at the face of the coal, is the additional expense of operation 
due to the wages of these men. How much weight should be given to 
this objection it is difficult to say. The expense of operation would not 
be increased by the full amount of these wages, and probably not at all. 
The extra supervision would, without question, mean a greater and better 
output, with considerable savings in the way of equipment and timber, 
less delay in repairing track, and cleaner and safer working places. It 
is also true that these safety foremen might very well perform certain 
duties now assigned to other men working in the mine and which would 
not prevent the carrying out of the duties assigned to them by law. 

There is this further thing to be taken into consideration by those 
who argue that the expense would be too great. Under the Workmen’s 
Compensation Act, which will be in force in this state on and after the 
first of January, 1914, it will be necessary for the operators of mines in 
Ohio to provide compensation for all deaths and serious injuries due to 
accidents in mines. Since the miner usually earns good wages for the 
time during which he is employed, such compensation in the case of most 
miners probably will amount to the full sum allowed by the statute, viz. 
$3750 for each death due to accident. If one hundred deaths occurring 
in Ohio mines are due to the falls of roof and coal, this will mean a total 
cost to the coal operators of $375,000 per year in the shape of compensa¬ 
tion. Now if by adopting a system of careful supervision and adequate 
working rules, the operators could be saved a considerable portion of 
this expense, it would go a long ways towards making up for such addi¬ 
tional costs as might be incurred by the employment of the safety foremen. 

If a sufficient number of safety foremen, selected from among the 
miners because of their superior qualifications or intelligence, were em¬ 
ployed and entrusted with the powers and authority which we have sug¬ 
gested, it is the belief of the Commission that in the future there would 
be a very material reduction in the number of fatal accidents in the Ohio 
coal mines, and that such additional expense as this plan calls for would 
be in a very large degree compensated for by the reduction of other costs 
to the operators and by the superior quality of the product which they 
would secure from their mines. Our opinions in this matter are con¬ 
firmed by the experience of IMr. Martin Bolt, Chief Clerk of the State 
Mining Board in Illinois, a man who has had unusual opportunities to 


30 


study the causes of accidents and the best mode of preventing them. Jn 
giving his testimony before this Commission, (Proceedings, page 382) 
lie was asked: 

“Have you any suggestions to make as to a practical^le method of 
reducing accidents, and by practicable I mean taking into consideration 
the prices at which coal must be sold.” 

A. “Well, there are a number of things that might be done. I 
think one of the most important and the one that I believe would give 
the best results is to employ a face-boss or assistant to the mine manager 
whose duty it would be to go into the working places one or more times 
each day and if he would find a workman doing some of his work in a 
way that was not considered practical, or he was not properly protecting 
himself, to suggest to him how better to take care of his working place 
and how better to take care of himself. Where that plan has been 
adopted we have noticed a decrease in the fatal accidents.” 

Q. “That plan has been adopted in some mines?” 

A. “In some places, yes sir.” 

This plan has also been adopted to a limited extent in a few Ohio 
mines and the Chief Mine Inspector reports that these mines show a 
more favorable accident rate than do other mines in the same district. 
We understand that the companies which have adopted the plan are well 
pleased with the results. 

EFFICIENCY TESTS FOR MINERS. 

Several of the miners’ witnesses who appeared before the Commis¬ 
sion have urged upon us the desirability of recommending that the Legis¬ 
lature require certain eligibility or proficiency standards, determined by 
tests or examination, of men permitted to engage in mining other than as 
helpers. The idea of these witnesses seems to be that licenses should be 
issued by the mining inspection department to all qualified miners and 
only these men and their helpers would then lie permitted to engage in 
the business of coal mining. Such examinations are now given in some 
-tates, notably in Pennsylvania and Illinois. 

The objection to this plan is that under present conditions of mining, 
the standards would have to be so low as to amount to very little in the 
way of lessening the number of untrained men engaged in mining. Coal 
mining, as we have already seen, has ceased to be a skilled occupation. 
The old miner, who knew how to handle the pick and undercut his coal 
and lilock it for the purpose of mining, and who took with him into the 
room his son or some other boy and there taught him the art of mining, 
has nearly disappeared from the Ohio mines. Today the coal is undercut 
by machinery or is shot from the solid. There is very little use 
made of the pick and it is seldom we find that the coal is blocked. 




31 


Nor does it seem likely that we could go back to the old days, how¬ 
ever desirable it might be to have only skilled miners employed. The 
coal operators do not find it necessary to employ skilled miners, and to 
require them to do so by imposing rigid standards upon all who enter 
the mines would handicap Ohio operators in competition with the 
operators of other states. Such competition is already too keen to 
make it desirable to impose any very serious burden upon the Ohio 
operators. If the examinations were made strict enough to accomplish 
their purpose, it would tend to create a condition not unlike that of a 
'labor monopoly in the Ohio fields, by making it difficult for the operators 
to secure enough competent men to man their mines. 

Without pretending to deny the fact that there are too many men 
engaged in mining in Ohio, there is great danger that a system of rigid 
examination of the men engaged in mining would tend to the other 
extreme and would prevent the employment of enough men to secure the 
present output. If the examination were not made fairly rigid, however, 
it would accomplish very little. We have been told that such is the effect 
of examinations now being given to applicants for license to engage in 
coal mining in the States of Pennsylvania and Illinois. \Ve are not able 
to say how much truth there is in these statements, but since there are 
numerous men of foreign birth who have had no experience in coal min¬ 
ing to be found in the mines of Illinois, it seems likely that the tests there 
applied cannot be very severe. It is certainly true today that to apply in 
Ohio any test sufficient to prove a man’s familiarity with mining methods 
would very materially lessen the number of men whom the Ohio opera¬ 
tors may now employ. 

It is, however, the belief of the members of the Commission that 
tests of some degree of severity should be applied to those employed in 
responsible positions and having under their care other employes in the 
coal mines of Ohio. Such tests or examinations should be sufficient to 
prove that the mine superintendents, mine bosses, safety foremen and 
other officials employed in the mine possess a practical knowledge of 
mining methods and are familiar with the dangers involved in the busi¬ 
ness of mining and the methods of lessening such dangers. 

SOLID SHOOTING. 

Elsewhere we discuss the effect of blasting the coal before it has been 
undercut—the so-called “shooting-off-the-solid”—on causing an increase 
in the amount of fine coal, and recommend that the practice be forbidden 
by law in Ohio except in those mines- where it is absolutely essential. 
This matter is of importance also in connection with the conservation of 
life. The records of fatalities clearly show that there is increased danger 
in solid-shooting mines. 


f 


PART III —SCREENED COAL VS. MINE-RUN SYSTEM 

OF PAYMENT. 


HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

We come now to that portion of onr Report which has to do with 
the subject of inquiry chiefly in the minds of the legislators who au¬ 
thorized the appointment 'of this Commission, viz. the question of de¬ 
termining what is an equitable method of paying for coal weighed at 
thq mine. We trust that it will not be regarded as impertinent if we 
remark that in the opinion of most members of this Commission this 
question is of far less importance than those which we have already 
discussed,—the questions of what should lie done to conserve our coal 
resources and to lessen the number of accidents in coal mining. 

The present system of paying the miners in nearly all the mines of 
this state is based on the amount of coal mined and passed over an 
inch-and-a-quarter screen. That portion of the coal which passes through 
the screen is not used as a basis of wage payment. It would not be 
strictly correct to say that the miner is not paid for mining this coal, for 
in all the scale districts of the state the contracts entered into bewten 
miners and operators are based on the assumption that a certain fixed 
percentage of the coal will pass through a standard inch-and-a-quarter 
screen. This system of paying the miners has long been in operation in 
most of the mines of this state and the same system is applied, with 
certain modifications of detail, in some of the other states. 

In this state, at least, the systern seems to have originated at a 
time when only that portion of the coal which passed over the screen had 
a commercial value and entered into the market, and for that reason 
there was probably little objection offered to the system when it was 
first introduced. But when the consumers of coal began to find uses 
for the smaller grades of coal and the operators found it possible to 
dispose of a portion of the coal which had passed through the screen, 
miners began to criticise the system and the claim was advanced that the 
miner should be paid for all the coal as it came from the mine,—the 
well-known mine-run system,—instead of merely that portion which had 
passed over the screen. 

There were other objections to the system which the miners made 
at that time. The screens in use in various portions of the state, and 
at different mines in the same district, varied considerably in length and 
in the size of the opening between the bars. In 1883 ^ commission which 


32 



33 


reported on this subject found that the size of the openings in the 
screens varied from seven-eighths of an inch to two inches. This meant 
of course that in some cases the miners were being paid for a much 
larger percentage of the coal taken from the mines than they were at 
other mines. 

Thirty years ago this controversy over the mode of payment be¬ 
came so keen that the Legislature was applied to for relief. In 1883 
the Legislature appointed an able commission to investigate the sub¬ 
ject. This commission was composed of Dr. Edward Orton, the State 
Geologist, and Messrs. John Brashears and David D. Williams. The Com¬ 
mission conducted a thorough investigation and made its report to Gov¬ 
ernor Charles Foster in the early part of 1884. This report was sub¬ 
mitted by the Governor to the Legislature and was ordered printed, 
together with the testimony taken by the Commission. 

In reading the report made by this Commission of thirty years ago, 
together with the accompanying testimony, one who is familiar with 
the testimony taken by the present Commission is impressed by the 
fact that relatively little new light has been thrown upon the subject as 
a result of the discussion which has continued for the past three decades. 
•Aside from the fact that at the time the former Commission made its 
investigation, only that portion of the coal passing over the screen, 
which was known as nut coal, was being sold — the pea and slack at that 
time were usuallv unsaleable—the situation in Ohio with reference to the 

0 

screened coal controversy remains much the same as at the time the 
Commission of 1883 made its report. 

The present Commission has visited more mines than did the ear- - 
Her one and has extended its inspection to points outside as well as in¬ 
side the state. It has heard more witnesses and has secured a larger 
volume of testimony, largely due to the fact that the former Commission 
did not have the services of a stenographer. On the whole, however, 
the character of the testimony offered does not differ materially from 
that presented to the earlier Commission. The arguments made by the 
miners in favor of a change in the system of weighing coal and by the 
operators in opposition to a mine-run system, are much the same as 
were those presented to the Commission of 1883. In fact the arguments 
of thirty years ago are similar, even in language, to those made before 
the present Commission, as well as to those made before the Mines and 
Mining Committee of the Senate at the last session of the present Legis¬ 
lature. 

Certain it is that little information that is new on the subject of an 
equitable method of weighing coal has been developed by the investiga¬ 
tions of this Commission or at its hearings. We have, therefore, thought 
it not worth while to burden our Report with a summary of the tes¬ 
timony submitted on this matter. We shall have occasion to refer to 


3 


34 


particular portions of it whenever it seems to have a special bearing on 
the question under consideration. 

UNUSUAL CHARACTER OF MINERS" DEMANDS. 

The demand of the miners made to the Legislature for a change in 
the system of weighing an 1 paying for coal is somewhat nnnsnal; not 
nnnsnal in the sense that it is ynreasonable or that the same claim has 
not been made before this to the legislatures of this and other states, but 
nnnsnal in the sense that it is a demand for legislative interference in a 
matter which is usually left to contract between the parties concerned. 

The ordinary grounds for asking legislative interference in fixing the 
terms of a labor contract are not present in this case. Such demands are 
usually in behalf of persons who lack the power to protect their own 
interests in the making of a contract and whose weakness is therefore 
likely to be taken advantage of by their employers. Such interferences 
in labor contracts in this country have usually been in behalf of women 
workers, or of children and young persons who have not yet attained the 
legal age. In some cases legislatures have intervened to prevent the par¬ 
ties from entering into contracts which threatened to impair the health 
and safety of the workers, even when they were males of voting age. 
There has also been some legislation to prevent the payment in kind and 
to prevent employers compelling their laborers to trade at company 
stores where there is no competition in the sale of merchandise. 

In the case before us, however, the Legislature is asked to interfere 
to prevent coal operators from entering into a certain contract with 
the strongest labor organization in this country. This organization has 
had no difficulty in the past in securing fair wages for its members. It 
is probable indeed that the wages paid to the members of this organiza¬ 
tion constitute as large a share of the total wealth which has been 
produced in part by their labor as can be found in any other important 
industry, and when one considers the hazards of the occupation, he can 
not wish it otherwise. Every man working in and about a mine in the 
State of Ohio is obliged by the terms of the collective agreement to be¬ 
come'a member of this organization before the employer can keep him 
in his employ. Furthermore, the members of this union are not found in 
this state alone. The organization is as complete in the States of Illinois 
and Indiana, and in portions of other nearby states, as it is in the State 
of Ohio, and the contract entered into by the United Aline Workers is 
made in a joint conference with the coal operators in all these states. 

These statements are not made with the view of criticizing the work 
of the United Mine Workers’ union or the principle of collective bar¬ 
gaining, which this organization has lieen so successful in having adojited. 
On the contrary, it is the feeling of all members of this Commission that 
this system of ('ollective bargaining, as ])racticed by the miners and 







35 


operators of the states named, is a most successful and e{iuita1)le system 
of wage contract. It has, for the most part, put an end to a long series 
of strikes and la])or disputes, which no- only hampered tlie industry of 
('oal mining l)ut which caused great losses and disccmfort to other 
classes dependent upon coal as a fuel. ()ur pur|)ose in calling attention 
to the character of the demand made by the miners and the organiza¬ 
tion which is supporting it is merely to show that this demand for leg¬ 
islative interference can not b(' sustained by the claim that the miners 
are too weak to protect themseh es in the making of a contract. 

miners’ Or.TECTIONS TO PRESENT SYSTEM. 

• 

When we turn from the question of the right of the miners to make 
this demand of the Legislature, and the strength of the organization 
which is supporting it, to the merits of the demand itself, viz.: that the 
piiners in Ohio mines be paid on a mine-run basis, we find that there 
is considerable justification for their objections to the present system 
of payment on a screened-coal basis. 

I. The first objection which the miner is inclined to make to the 
screened-coal system is that under this system he is not paid for the 
lehole produce of his labor. Put in this bald form, with the implication 
that under the screened-coal system no attem|)t is made to consider 
the amount of coal passing through the screen when the contract is 
entered into, the statement is erroneous. All the contracts in every scaA 
district in the state have considered this point and have attempted to 
allow for it. 

In the Hocking Valley, which is the basing district not only for 
this state but for other states as well, the contract is made on the as¬ 
sumption that 28 percent of the coal which is mined and screened will 
pass through an inch-and-a-quarter screen, and this same assumption 
g{n-erns contracts in all districts of the state except the Massillon dis¬ 
trict. The present contract price is $1.00 per ton for pick-mined coal 
which passes over the standard screen. Wherever it is necessary, for 
one cause or another—possibly the destruction of the tipple by fire— 
to pay for coal on a mine-run basis, the contract calls for payment of 
.five-sevenths of the lump price, or 71 3-7 cents per ton for coal paid 
for on a mine-run basis. 

In the Massillon district, where experience has shown that not so 
much fine coal is produced incidental to mining, it is assumed that only 
25 ])er cent of the coal passes through the screen, and this assumed per¬ 
centage is considerably in advance of the actual amount of screenings 
which is obtained on the average in this sub-district. 

I 

While the above grievance of the miner against the screened-coal 
method of payment, viz.: that a i)art of what he produces is not paid for, 
will not bear analysis, it is probably true that this assumed grievance is 


36 


the most serious defect in the present system of wage payment. It is not 
our real grievances, but our fancied wrongs, which cause discontent. If 
we purchase a suit of clothes at a very low price, only to find that it is 
“shoddy” instead of ^‘all-wool”, even though no misrepresentation was 
made to us at the time of sale and although the low price asked should 
have put us on our guard, we are likely to consider ourselves as 
swindled. 

The force of this objection to the present system of paying the 
miner was well expressed in the Report of the Commission of 1883, which 
said, “The miner finds it hard to realize that anything is paid for ex--^ 
cept the favored grade. Though he may be forced to acknowledge, 
when pressed with the obvious facts of the case, that his wages do 
cover, at least in some sense, all the output, the moment that the pres¬ 
sure is withdrawn he relapses into the old view, as our records abun¬ 
dantly show. All of his labor that is represented in the nut coal and slack 
is. in his favorite phrase, ‘given to the operator for nothing’, so long 
as he sees these grades going to market without being directly accounted 
for to him. The stubbornness of this misconception it is hard to over¬ 
state.” 

The answer which the former Commission made to this objection of 
the miner was to draw an analogy between the work of the miner in 
producing lump coal, with some incidental slack and nut coal, and that 
of the wood-chopper who is paid by the cord for the wood he has cut, 
and is not paid for the chips. “The chips,” said the Commission, “may 
make good fuel and may take the place in market of some of the cord- 
wood, but the wood-chopper, when cutting by the cord, will scarcely 
claim that he is entitled to a part of the proceeds of the sale of the chips 
even though they are made by his labor. His labor has been already 
paid for.” 

However close may have been the analogy between the work of 
the miner and that of the wood-chopper at the time the former Com¬ 
mission made its report, we will not undertake here to discuss. The sit¬ 
uation so far as the miner is concerned has changed to a considerable 
extent, owing to the fact that now all of the coal—the slack and pea 
coal as well as the nut size—is sold. At the time the earlier Commis- 
'sion rendered its report, only that portion of the coal which passed 
through the screen and which could be re-screened as nut coal com¬ 
manded a price in the market. The miners now-a-days has all the more 
reason to feel that he is giving the operator “for nothing” a portion of the 
produce of his labor. Even in the case of the wood-chopper, we dare 
say, if he discovered that someone came regularly to his pile and gathered 
up the chips and paid the owner of the wood for them, he would sooner 
or later enter a complaint that he was not being piaid for all that he had 
produced. 








37 


Without further discussion of the justice of these grievances on the 
part of the miner, it is sufficient to say that as long as the miners believe 
that they’ are not being paid for a portion of the product which they 
have produced and these grievances cause disputes and bitter feeling 
between miners and operators, it is desirable, in the interest of both 
parties as well as in the social interest, to eliminate these grievances if it 
can be done without material injury to either party. 

There is another phase of this matter which is of some importance 
to the public. Under the present system of payment there is no in¬ 
centive to the miner to load the fine coal which is produced as the result 
of his operations in mining. It is highly important that this coal should 
be loaded, not only in the interest of conservation of coal but because it is 
dangerous in gaseous mines to leave it underground. Our laws wisely 
provide that this fine coal shall be taken out of the mine. In spite of 
the law, it is a fact that the fine coal is not always loaded into the car 
and taken from the mine, as this Commission has had more than one 
chance to observe. Since the miner feels that his pay will not be in¬ 
creased by loading out this fine coal, he is oftentimes inclined to throw 
it back into the heap of slate and other impurities,—the ‘'gob pile” as the 
miners term it—in the hope that its presence will not be detected. Under 
a system of paying the miners on the basis of all coal sent out of the 
mine, there would not be the temptation to dispose of the fine coal 
in this way. 

2. The second objection of the miners to the present method of pay¬ 
ment is that the percentage of lump coal which passes over the screen, 
and on which their rate of pay is alone computed, is fixed in a more or 
less arbitrary fashion and does not correspond to the actual conditions 
at many mines or even at the same mine under varying conditions. 

The contract in the Hocking Valley field, as we have seen, is based 
on the idea that 28 per cent of the coal passes through the screen. The 
Hocking field is the basing-district upon which all contracts are entered 
into and no modifications of the contract are made for the-other scale 
districts although such modifications would seem to be warranted by vari¬ 
ations in conditions. No two mines are precisely alike in the character of 
the coal which they contain or in the percentage of fine coal which neces¬ 
sarily results from the operation of mining; indeed it frequently happens 
that there will be such variations in the character of the coal in different 
rooms of the same mine. 

Furthermore, as we have already mentioned, the coal in thin pillars 
is more or less crushed and a larger percentage of fine coal results ’from 
drawing these thin pillars than comes from operations in the rooms. 
For this reason, miners in many mines refuse to draw the pillars unless 
there is an addition made to the ordinary contract price for mining coal. 

There is no doubt in the minds of the members of the Commission 
that this objection on the part of the miners to the screened-coal system 





38 


of payment is a valid one; indeed it seems to the Commission to be the 
strongest argument against the present system. We have found ivi our 
visits at the relatively few mines which we have been able to inspect the 
variations in the percentage of screenings ranging all the way from less 
than 5 per cent of the total output to 40 and 45 per cent; five per cent 
is of course an unusually low figure and very few mines in the state 
would show such a small amount of screenings. 

It is apparent that if the percentage of screenings is less than the 
amount fixed in the contract for a particular scale district, the miners are 
receiving a higher rate of pay than was contemplated at the time the 
contract was entered into; on the other hand, where the percentage of 
screenings exceeds that assumed to exist in a particular district, the 
miners at such mines do not receive the full amount of wages which the 
contract was intended to guarantee. Generally speaking, throughout the 
Hocking Valley it is probable that the percentage of screenings corre¬ 
sponds fairly closely to the 28 per cent assumed to exist for this field. 
However, the same percentage is assumed to exist in the contracts made 
between miners and operators in the Eastern Ohio and Cambridge dis¬ 
tricts, the first and third districts in point of production in the state. 
Owing to the character of the coal in the 'No. 7 and No. 8 seams, it 
seems likely that this percentage of screenings is too low, that an average 
of more than 28 per cent of screenings would be found throughout these 
districts if an accurate record were kept of the percentage of screenings 
at each mine in the districts. 

It is especially in these districts, therefore, that the screened-coal 
system of payment works hardship to the miners, although the same 
thing is true at some of the mines in other districts in Ohio. Even the 
operators have admitted to us that the present system of paying for coal 
gives an advantage to those districts which sell a large tonnage of mine- 
run coal. The operators m such districts profit not only at the expense 
of the miners but they also have the advantage over operators in those 
districts where an effort is made to secure as large a percentage of lump 
coal as is possible. 

In spite of the validity of the argument which we have just pre¬ 
sented, the Commission is more or less uncertain as to how much weight 
should be given to this objection to the present system of weighing coal. 
Under any system of collective bargaining, it must naturally occur that 
inecpialities aie found to exist and injustice is done to certain individuals. 
These inequalities and injustices will inhere in any contract whch is 
based on general conditions rather than on individual performances. If 
there were no disadvantages to the mine-run system of payment, the 
Commission would be inclhied to attach a great deal of weight to the 
above argument against the screened-coal system of payment. We are 
oliliged, however, to weigh this argument against arguments made hy 




39 


the operators in opposition to the mine-run system of payment and to 
consider carefully where the balance of truth lies. 

3. The third argument made by the miners is closely related to the 
above. They claim that under the present system of paying for coal it is 
to the interest of the operators at some mines to produce a large amount 
of fine coal in order to secure a larger percentage of screenings than is 
contemplated by the terms of their contracts. In order to do this, it is 
claimed that the coal is often dumped in such a way as to break it an:l 
send more of it through the screen. If the drop from the car to the 
screen is considerable, ,more coal will be broken than if the fall is a short 
one. Furthermore, if the pitch of the car is slight and the coal is slowly 
dumped, more of the coal will pass through the screen than when it is 
dumped rapidly and the fine coal is carried over on the lumps. On the 
other hand, the operators claim that the miners at times will not permit 
the coal to be dumped in such a way as to eliminate the fine coal which is 
in the car. 

It probably is not true that either of these accusations could be 
proved against operators or miners as a class. The Commission has no 
desire to accuse operators generally of adopting any such expedients to 
obtain coal for which nothing is to be paid nor to accuse miners of dis¬ 
honest practices in order to avoid the screening of the fine coal. This 
much is true, however, that inasmuch as most men are guided in a large 
part by motives of self-interest, when the coal is being sold on a mine-run 
basis, at low prices, there probably will be more carelessness in the hand¬ 
ling of the coal and the operator will be less careful in his endeavor to 
secure a large percentage of lump coal than he would be if the coal were 
to be sold on a lump-coal basis. 

4. The fourth argument made by the miners against the present 
system of determining wages to be paid is that the inch-an-a-quarter 
screen begins to zcear as soon os it is in use and the openings between 
the bars soon exceed the inch and a quarter allowed for in the contract. 
The wider the opening, the more coal will {)ass through and the smaller 
will be the percentage of output on which the miners’ wages are based. 
The miners furthermore claim that when the operator’s attention is called 
to the defects in the screen, there is usually considerable delay in sub¬ 
stituting a new set of screens, and the inference is drawn that it is to the 
operator’s interest to have the screens out of order as long as po'ssible in 
order that there may be a large amount of coal for which no wages are 
paid. 

There can be no doubt that many screens now in use are so worn 
that the openings between the l^ars exceed the inch-and-a-(|uarter limit. 
Members of the Commission took the measurements of the screens at 
nearly all of the mines visited and it was seldom that we found a screen 
which could be said to fulfill the terms provided for in the contract. 


40 


Where the bars were bent, the wider openings were of course compen¬ 
sated for by the necessarily narrower openings between other bars, but 
in a number of instances the bars were badly worn. We found one in¬ 
stance on our inspection trip in which the same screen had been in use at 
the mine visited for more than three years. Under such conditions the 
bars would be badly worn and an amount of coal very considerably in 
excess of the percentage provided for by the contract would pass through 
the screen, for which the miner received no pay. In other cases the bars 
were worn but little and the amount of coal passing through would ex¬ 
ceed by a very small amount the percentage provided for. 

The contract entered into between the operators and the United Mine 
Workers provides for a check weighman at each mine, who is elected and 
paid by the miners. It is the duty of the check weighman to call attention 
to the condition of the screen if it is out of order, and he is supposed to 
provide himself with a steel gauge for the purpose of measuring the 
thickness of the bars and the distances between them. The ooerators, 
naturally enough, assert that this ends the responsibility for the care of 
the screens as far as they are concerned. If the check weighman calls 
attention to the defective character of a screen, the operator either must 
provide a new screen or run the risk of having his mine shut down until 
he does so. While there is no doul)t that the failure to have new screens 
substituted for those in a worn condition is in a large part due to the 
negligence of the miners’ representative, the. operator cannot, we think, 
evade entire responsibility in this matter. It should be the business of 
the operator to keep on hand an extra set of screens in order that sub¬ 
stitution may be made at once whenever it is made clear that the old 
screens are in bad condition. In some cases this is done. Probably in 
most cases, however, the operator waits until his attention is called to the 
worn screens; he then promises to obtain a new set and very likely does 
send in an order. Delays, however, frequently occur in receiving the new 
screens, and, in the meantime, the miners have no choice but to quit work 
or to work with the worn screens still in use. Sometimes this delav 
seems to be an intentional one, and miners’ officials have repeatedly called 
our attention to delays of several weeks in substituting new screens, and 
at times they have had to resort to the expedient of closing down the mine 
before the operator succeeded in having his order filled. Several in¬ 
stances of unusual and unnecessary delay in getting screens are given in 
our Proceedings, pp. 1227-1229, 

It need scarcely be said that a system which knows no remedy but a 
strike on the part of workmen in order to cure a disorder which ought to 
be remedied immediately is wrong in actual i)ractice and reflects no credit 
upon the operator. At the same time, the members of this Commission 
have not been inclined to attach so much importance to the matter of 
defective screens in use as have the miners in their testimony before the 





41 


Senate Committee on Mines and i\iining or in that offered to this Com¬ 
mission. It must be apparent that l)lame for failure to have the proper 
screens is shared by miners and operators alike, and if this were the only 
criticism which could be made against the screened-coal system it would 
not appear to the members of this Commission that the remedy lay in 
legislative interference with the contracts entered into between miners and 
operators, ibis might be the proper remedy if the miners were unor¬ 
ganized and were unable to protect themselves against this form of abuse, 
but, as we have already noted, the miners’ union is a strong one and has 
not shown itself lacking in capacity to safeguard the interests of its 
members. 

5. The fifth objection which the miners make to the present system 
of wage payment is that the coal which they undertake to mine differs in 
hardness and strength in different rooms of the same mine, and that it, 
therefore yields various percentages of fine coal when it is passed over 
the screen. In this way, two miners, of approximately equal skill and 
ability, will employ the same energy in mining coal in two different 
rooms, and will be unequally paid for their labor owing to the differences 
in the quality of the coal mined. 

This objection is probably not a very weighty one in-so-far as the 
rate of pay to miners is affected. The reason for this statement is that 
today miners generally refuse to work in those parts of the mine in which 
the coal mines smaller than in the average working places. The validity 
of the objection lies chiefly in the effect which this system has upon the 
conservation of coal. Owing to the fact that in some portions of the mine 
the coal mines smaller than in other portions and the miner therefore 
refuses to mine it, this portion of the mine is in many cases abandoned 
and good fuel is thus sacrificed. The same thing is true of the coal in 
the pillars and for the same reason the miner frequently refuses to draw 
the pillars. In both these respects, therefore, the present method of 
wage payment is opposed to the interests of the conservation of coal, and 
this objection undoubtedly would disappear under a system of payment 
by which all the coal mined was paid for. 

6. The last objection to the screened-coal system of payment which 
we shall consider is the claim of the miners that under this system the 
operators are indifferent as to the skill or training of the men employed 
in their mines. They assert that poor workmen who break up their 
coal in fine pieces, owing to ignorance in the method of handling it, are 
more profitable to the employer than are practical miners who would 
mine coal in a more workmanlike fashion. It is for this reason, they 
claim, that there is a tendency today to employ foreign-born laborers 
and farm hands in the mines and that in this way the operators have 
reduced the work of mining from a skilled to an unskilled calling. 

It is obvious that the force of this objection depends upon, the validity 
of the claim that it is more profitable for the operator Co sell his coal at 


42 


the low price which will be obtained for it if sold as screenings or on 
a inine-riin basis, in order to secure the economy of labor costs result¬ 
ing from the use of unskilled labor, than it is for him to obtain higher 
prices for the lump coal, even though such coal has to be secured by the 
payment of higher wages to more highly skilled laborers. This argu¬ 
ment may be valid in some cases but we cannot conceive it to be to the 
interest of most operators to employ unskilled miners for the sake of 
obtaining a large amount of hne coal. The greater use of unskilled 
labor today is to be explained, not by the above reason, but by the fact 
that the introduction of coal-cutting machines and other mechanical 
devices has made it unnecessary to employ miners trained in the use 
of the pick. 

operators" objections to mine-run system. 

Let us turn now to the objections offered by the operators to a law 
compelling the payment for coal on a mine-run basis, which is the change 
from the present system of wage payment that is demanded by the 
miners. 

I. In the first place, the operators object tO' any legislative inter¬ 
ference whatever in the making of a contract between them and the 
miners’ union. They claim that legislative interference is not necessary, 
to secure an equitable contract. They point to the strong organization 
of the miners and to their unity of action in presenting their demands 
at the biennial conferences which fix the wages in coal mining in the 
central bituminous field. They claim that the miners are better organized 
than the operators themselves and are thus better prepared to care for 
their own interests whenever a controversy arises between the, two 
parties. 

The operators say that if the miners are not wrong in their state¬ 
ments that a mine-run system of payment is necessary to secure an 
equitable wage agreement, the miners’ organization is strong to demand 
it as the condition to entering into any contract. They point further to 
the fact that this same organizatioh has secured the mine-run system of 
])ayment in other states,—notably in the great coal-mining state of 
Illinois—without any need of legislation. 

The operators further claim that if the legislature takes this dis¬ 
puted matter of the mode of payment out of the realm of contract and 
makes it a statutory requirement that coal shall be paid for on a mine-run 
basis, it will have weakened the operators’ bargaining power. The 
operators contend that if a mine-run system were to be secured by 
contract, the operators in return for this concession probably would be 
able to obtain some equivalent in the matter of wages to be paid, or 
otherwise. If, however, this weapon is taken from the operators by 
statute rather than by agreement, they will have to fight out the wage 
scale without, the ri^ht to make a concession in the mode of wage pay- 


43 


ment. The operators claim that if it is logical to change the mode of pay¬ 
ment by law, it is logical to fix the rate of payment by the same means, 
and that in this way it might be made possible for the operators to con¬ 
tinue their business without an increase in the cost of labor. 

In the arguments before the Commission, the operators have fre- 
cjuently challenged the miners'to state whether they would be willing 
to accept the Illinois wage scale if the mine-run system is adopted. The 
miners have generally refused to answer this question directly and have 
simply stated that the present controversy was not over the matter of 
wages. This the operators deny and assert that the demand for the 
mine-run system of wage payment is in reality a demand on the part 
of the miners that their wages be increased; that owing to the weakness 
of the operators in bargaining power, due to their lack of complete or¬ 
ganization and the willingness of operators in other states to see an in¬ 
crease in the cost of coal mining in Ohio, a-mine-run system of payment 
made compulsory by law would be equivalent to a statute requiring an 
increase in wages. 

The Commission realizes that it has nothing to do with the matter 
of fixing the wage scale, but some members of the Commission are will¬ 
ing to admit that there is much in the operators’ contention that the 
miners are fully able to protect their own interests in a wage confer¬ 
ence, and that to take from the operators the right to concede the mine- 
run or any other system of wage payment in return for concessions made 
by the other side, would seriously handicap the Ohio operators at the 
next interstate conference. 

Nevertheless, the Commission feels that it can not push this ob¬ 
jection to a change in the mode of wage payment very far. The Joint 
Resolution which created this Commission instructed it to report an 
equitable system of weighing coal at the mines, and if we find that the 
present system is inequitable we must endeavor to find out and report a 
satisfactory substitute. 

2 . The second objection of the operators to the mine-run system is 
that under this system there would be a great increase in the amount of 
fine coal, and that, inasmuch as the fine coal sells at a much lower rate 
than the lump coal, this would be equivalent to a great reduction in the 
rate of profits in coal mining, and they further contend that the coal¬ 
mining industry in Ohio is not in a condition to stand a reduction in the 
prices of its products. 

A large part of the Ohio coal is transported by rail to various ports- 
on Lake Erie and is there dumped on the boats and transported by water 
to points in the Northwest, especially Duluth, Minnesota, and Milwaukee 
and Superior, Wisconsin. Here it is unloaded by the same dumping- 
process, and owing to the large amount of fine coal which has resulted 
from this method of handling the coal at the receiving and distributing 


44 


ports, it must be re-screened at the upper lake ports with a very great 
reduction in the amount of lump coal before the latter can be sold in 
competition with coals from other states. 

Under a mine-run system, the operators claim that there would be 
carelessness in mining the coal. The miner, knowing that he must be 
paid on the basis of all the coal taken from the mine, would, they con¬ 
tend, use more powder in his shots, in order to bring down the coal 
and not be obliged to make use of the pick. This extra use of powder 
would not only increase the amount of fine coal but would also tend to 
shatter, more or less, the coal which left the mine in large lumps. When 
these lumps were dropped on the boat at the lake port, and again when 
they were taken from the boat by hoisting appliances and dropped on the 
pile of coal on the dock, being in a shattered condition, they would break 
and there would be a very considerable increase in the amount of fine 
coal, with a corresponding smaller percentage of lump coal which could 
be sold at profitable prices in the Northwest. Even as it is, the operators 
claim that they find great difficulty in disposing of the amount of fine coal 
which is produced incidental to the present method of handling. The 
Northwest is not a large manufacturing district and there is, therefore, 
little demand for fine coal for manufacturing purposes. The railroads 
are about the only considerable purchasers, and many of the railroads 
prefer to use lump coal. Furthermore, many of the railroads in the 
North and West own their own coal mines—in Illinois, Iowa and other 
states — and for this reason are not large purchasers of coal on the 
open market. The fine coal in the Northwest is accordingly a “drug 
in the market’’, and if the quantity were to be considerably increased 
it would be very difficult to dispose of it at any price whatever. 

This argument on the part of the operators is a plausible one and 
there is no doubt that- most of the Ohio operators are honestly convinced 
of its truth. They have brought before us as witnesses large purchasers 
and dealers in coal in the Northwest, to testify as to the condition in 
which the coal reaches the northern ports and as to the closeness of the 
competition between this coal and that from other states. 

One of these witnesses, who, made a strong impression upon the 
Commission, not only because of his apparent honesty, but because of 
the thorough knowledge which he had of the subject, was an inspector 
for the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway. This 
gentlemen has been an inspector of coal for this road for thirty years 
past and has had large experience with coals, not only from Ohio but 
from the states of Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Iowa and Mis- 
.souri. His, work as in.spector is not confined to the examination of 
coal at the docks but takes him into the mining districts where he en¬ 
deavors to influence the operators and miners to produce their coal in a 
more satisfactory condition for use on his road. According to his state- 


45 


nients, (Pioceedings, pages 612-615) the Ohio coal, after it reaches the 
northern docks and has been re-screened, loses from 35 to 40 per cent 
of the total amount shipped. It must be remembered that this is the 
second screening of the coal. The coal was screened over an inch-and-a- 
quarter screen at the mines, where, according to the assumption on which 
the mining contracts are based, 28 per cent of the coal brought from the 
mine would pass through the screen. 

Some portions of Mr. McDonald’s testimony, which bears directly 
on the subject under discussion, we have thought it desirable to quote. 

“Question: If the coal—the large pieces for instance—were in a 
shattered condition, so that they would fall to pieces more readily, fall 
into smaller particles, what effect would that have on your handling 
of Ohio coals? 

Answer: WTll, I don’t quite get the idea yet, but if anything oc¬ 
curred to give us a larger percentage of fine coal than we get now,* it 
would certainly have its effect on the purchase of that coal. 

Q. Well, how would you look upon it? Would you handle Ohio 
coals if the grade were reduced? 

A. No, it would certainly work to the disadvantage of Ohio coals; 
if we have from 30 to 35 per cent of small coal in there now and that 
percentage were increased, it would have a tendency to have us seek 
coal elsewhere that would be in better condition than that. 

Q. What would be the logical field that you would seek if you 
were not able, through the conditions just indicated, to take the Ohio 
coals ? 

A. The fields nearer home, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri. 

O. Would that be lake coal or rail coal? 

A. All rail coal. 

Q. Mdiat do you find in all-rail coal, as compared to lake coal, 
in the conditions in which it reaches your points of consumption,—I 
mean in the way of size and proportion? 

A. WTll, now, to answer that correctly, my answer might be a 
little misleading. The lake coal, coming to us from the dock, separates 
—the coarse coal separates from the fine. There are periods of the year 
when we will get a large run of coarse coal which would be quite'satis¬ 
factory. At other periods the tendency would be to get a larger per¬ 
centage of the small or the fine coal,—the dust. Now with our all-rail 
shipments we do not experience that difficulty; it comes uniform,—a 
uniform size, if you catch my idea. 

* * * * 

Q. If a larger quantity of powder was used in shooting down the 
Ohio coals, meaning the coals that you use from Ohio, and the large 


46 


])ieces were cracked and shattered, so that in being dumped into the 
Iwats and from tlie boats onto the dock, so that they would break more 
than they now do, what would be the disposition on the part of your 
companies in handling that coal,—buying that coal t 

A. From my stand])oint as an inspector, I would certainly feel as 
ihiough, to be just. I would advise our people to dispense with the use 
of that coal; that is to be conscientious about it. 

Q. Then do I understand you that the natural result would be to 
seek the all-rail coal that could be reached? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Which would be such states as Illinois and Iowa? 

A. Yes, sir. 

.Q. And that you use from Ohio now approximately 750,000 tons 
annually ? 

A. Yes, sir." 

At the urgent request of the operators, the Commission visited 
tlie coal docks at Toledo and saW' the coal loaded by dumping on the 
floats, and also visited Milwaukee and there saw coal dumped on the 
docks, where Ohio coal w^as lying side by side with that brought from 
West Virginia. The operators desired us to see how coal was shattered, 
even under present conditions of mining. There was no difficulty in un¬ 
derstanding this much from our observations. 

Inasmuch, however, as there is no coal from these districts in Ohio 
which is paid for on a mine-run basis and which is shipped to the North- 
w'est, we were unable to judge as to how^ much more, if any, hne coal 
would be produced by dumping coal mined on the mine-run basis than is 
now’ being secured from the lump coal. The whole question hinges upon 
the ^accuracy of the statements of the operators that under a mine-run 
system, the miners \vould use more powder and would overshoot their 
coal and that this would tend to shatter the large pieces so that they 
would be shipped in a far less satisfactory condition and would l)e more 
subject to breakage when dumped on the boats and on the docks. 

We are undecided in our owm minds as to how far this contention 
on the part of the operators can Ije sustained. All parties admit that 
where coal is shot from off the solid, that is, where it is not undercut 
either by machines or by pick, more powder must be used in order to 
bring down the coal and that the coal is therefore in a less satisfactory 
condition when taken from the mines. There is, however, very little coal 
being mined in this way in the State of Ohio, and even that which-is so 
produced does not enter into the lake trade. Much of the coal in Illinois, 
])robably a little more than one-half, is mined by shooting from off the 
solid. We saw the effect of this practice in the mines in Illinois and do 
not hesitate to affirm our belief that tin's is not a ])roper method of mining 
coal. It not only ])roduces a less satisfactory grade of coal but it increases 




47 


the danger to the miners and tor this reason we are recommending that 
shooting oft the solid l:)e prohibited l)y law in Ohio, as it now is in l^enn- 
sylvania. An exception should he made for mines like many in the Mas¬ 
sillon district, where it is impracticable to undercut the coal and where 
neither the operators nor the miners seem to desire to have this ])ractice 
discontinued. 

Such uncertainty as we have regarding the results of mining under a 
mine-run system, so far as the increase in the percentage of fine coal is 
concerned, is with respect to the coal that is undercut, which constitutes 
from 90 to 95 per cent of the coal mined in Ohio at the present time. 
It does not require such large charges of powder to bring down this coal. 
Even the operators, at least those most conservative in their statements, 
do not claim that the miners would use much more powder than they are 
using at the present time. They say that today the miner knows that he 
must be careful not to break the coal, for this would cause a reduction 
in his earning capacity; therefore, he uses only enough ])Owder to dislodge 
the coal and must oftentimes extract the large lumps from the dislodged 
portion by means of a pick, which involves hard labor on his part. Under 
a mine-run system, where he would be paid at the same rate for fine coal 
as for the lump coal, he would be sure to use enough powder to roll over 
the dislodged portion and to break up the coal in pieces small enough to be 
handled easily. 

The miners claim that it would not be to their interest to overcharge 
their holes. They say that if the coal were shot in this fashion, it would 
throw it back in such a way as to dislodge their posts^ causing more work 
in resetting the timber, and that it would scatter the fine coal throughout 
the room and in the “gob pile" and thus increase the labor in loading. 
They furthermore claim that it is to their interest to have large lumps 
of coal; that these large lumps are usually required to “crib” their car, 
that is, to build up the load above the sides of the car so as to enable them 
to get out a larger tonnage, and they claim that it is easier to load the 
lump coal by hand than it is to gather u]) the line coal by means of a 
shovel. 

The Commission is unable to decide as between these conflicting 
claims of operators and miners. The operators from the State of Ohio 
who have appeared before us are unanimous in testifying that the efifect 
of the mine-run system would be to shatter the coal and to lessen the 
amount suitable for lake shipment. The miners, on the other hand, are 
just as unanimous in their claim that the mine-run system in mines where 
the coal is undercut would not have the effect predicted by the oi)erators. 
There is no reason for the Commission to doubt the sincerity of either 
])arty. Such evidence on the subject as we have needed to enable us 
to decide as between these conflicting claims we have been obliged to 
get outside the state. Even here ojiinions difier, and furthermore, the 


48 


coals of other states are not always sufficiently similar to those in Ohio 
to make comparison of much value. 

One or two witnesses called by the operators while the Commission 
was in Chicago, gave us, however, some valuable testimony on this point, 
Mr. Harry M. Taylor, who is an operator of wide experience and is 
familiar with conditions in the Hocking Valley, and is now operating 
mines in the states of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and ^Missouri, gave valuable 
testimony in regard to the subject under discussion. , 

Mr. Taylor says that when he was president of the Illinois Coal 
Operators’ Association he had under his personal knowledge the condi¬ 
tions in almost every mine in that state. His testimony was as follows: 

“In the solid-shooting mines there is an enormous increase in the 
percentage of screenings and the quality of the coal has been deteriorated 
by the mine-run system. In the mines where the coal is undercut by 
machines I do not think that the mine-run system has materially affected 
the condition of the coal, because where the coal is undercut it requires 
in the neighborhood of two pounds of powder to shoot the coal and that 
is not an excessive amount of powder and does not injure the roof and 
does not deteriorate the quality of the coal; but where the coal is shot 
off the solid there is an opportunity for ^the man to make the powder 
do the work by putting in greater shots and doing less drilling, and where 
that is done the roof is weakened, the quality of the lump coal is dete¬ 
riorated by the overshooting of the coal. It shatters the natural crystal¬ 
lization of the coal as it lies in the pit and makes an excessive amount 
of screenings. A greater part of the coal is put in a condition which 
is not as marketable as the screened coals and the principal trouble comes 
from the fact that the lump coal, being shattered by the shot, will not 
hold together all right, and later on, when it comes to transportation, if 
it has been shattered by the overshooting, deteriorates in the car and 
a large amount of screenings are made and the coal will not stock; but 
where the coal is undercut in this state by machines, that condition does 
not exist. The coal is not damaged in-that way. It is only where it is 
shot off the solid and where the solid shooting gives the man an op¬ 
portunity to use more powder in his holes, that is, putting bigger shots 
in and a less number of holes. Blowing the coal out gives a very much 
inferior grade of coal than it does where the coal is properly drilled and 
shot on the solid and where it is undercut.” 

The value of Mr. Taylor’s testimony is due to the fact that in Il¬ 
linois all the mines are paying the miners on a mine-run basis. Later on 
in his testimony, Mr. Taylor refers to the possible effects of a mine-run 
system on the coal in Ohio. 

Question: “Before you came to Chicago, you were familiar with 
Ohio coal, were you not ? 

Answer: “Yes, sir. • 





I 


49 

Q. “You are particularly familiar with Hocking coal? 

A. “Yes, sir. 

O. “You have had something to do with the mining and with the 
selling of that coal in former years? 

A. “Yes, I have always kept my connection because I operated 
coal docks wdiich handled Hocking coal continuously for thirty years. 

0. “Will you give the Commission your opinion as to what effect 
the run-of-the-mine system, if adopted in Giro, wmuld have on Ohio coal, 
and particularly on the coal that you are most familiar with,—the 
Hocking ? 

A. “I think it would have a bad effect because the Hocking coal 
finds its market there. It has to stand transportation by rail and lake, 
and if the coal should be overshot it w^ould deteriorate the quality of 
the coal to such an extent that it would not stand the handling and 
therefore could not find this market. 

Q. “Mr. Taylor, a bit ago you said that it w'as your experience that 
wherever machines w^ere used the coal was not overshot. ' • 

A. “If all the Hocking coal is mined bv machines it wouldn’t 
have that effect. 

Q. “Nine-tenths-are mined by machine. 

A. “You are making that statement. I simply say that if the coal 
is overshot, as it is wjhere it is shot off the solid, it would take away 
the value of the Hocking Valley coal because the overshooting of that 
coal w^ould rob it of the only quality that makes it possible for it to 
find a good market. As I understand, the conditions in the Hocking 
Valley have become so universally machine mining that that does not 
exist to a large extent, that is in the lake shipping coal.” 

Other Illinois operators gave testimony wdiich tended to confirm the 
statements made by Mr. Taylor. Mr. F. C. Honnold, the Secretary of 
the Illinois Coal Operators’ Association, said: “The principal difficulty 
we have had from the run-of-mine basis in this state has been largely in 
the hand or pick mines, where they substituted powder for muscle. In 
the mines wdiere we have the coal undercut w'e haven’t this trouble. • The 
grade of coal is quite satisfactory and the run-of-mine standard is not 
particularly objectionable.” 

The operators in Ohio cla’m that the probable increase in the amount 
of fine coal under the mine-run system is the most serious danger that 
would be created by the adoption of such a system in this state. In view 
of the outside testimony which we have just quoted in regard to this 
point, the members of the Commission are not convinced that this danger 
is as great as the operators claim it to be. In our opinion, the chief 
danger to the operators comes from the probable increase in the per¬ 
centage of impurities. However, if the mine-run system is to be adopted 
in Ohio as a basis for paying the miners, it would seem desirable that 


4 


50 


these fears of the operators be quieted in advance by ])lacing safeguards 
to the system. The operators should not be required by law to pay the 
same rates for the tiner grades of coal that they pay for the lump coal. 
It is not practicable to prescribe in a law any differences in the rates of 
pay for the different sizes of coal, but the o])erators should be left free to 
make contracts of this nature if they care to and can convince the miners 
that this is necessary. 

We are suggesting a system by which it can be determined by the 
two contracting parties, or, if they fail to agree, by state inspection, 
what amount of fine coal it is natural to suppose would necessarily result 
from the operation of a given mine if the work of mining were conducted 
in a workmanlike manner. The contracts between operators and miners 
to have the men paid on a mine-run basis might be made conditional upon 
keeping the amount of fine coal within the limits established by this fixed 
percentage. 

There is one more phase of this fine-coal question which must be 
considered before leaving this part of the discussion. Within recent years 
there has been a very great increase in the demand for fine coal. Thirty 
years ago, when the former commission made its report, there was very 
little use made of any coal below the’ nut size; the pea coal and the 
slack were thrown together on large heaps, which still constitute one 
of the characteristic features of the landscape in most coal mining com¬ 
munities. A great many of these slack piles have been ruined by fire 
through spontaneous combustion and the coal that remains in them today 
is of little use. In some cases, however, the demand for fine coal has 
been so great that these piles of slack have been carefully cleaned, and 
the coal in them has been marketed. 

Owing to the increase in the size of our modern industrial estab¬ 
lishments, there has been a great increase in the size of the furnaces used 
in power plants, and as automatic stoking appliances have come to be em¬ 
ployed there has followed a demand for fine coal. Occasionally the de¬ 
mand is so great that even lump coal has been purchased and crushed 
for use in these furnaces. 

At the request of the miners, the Commission visited the power 
'plants of the Detroit United Railways, in Detroit, Michigan, where the 
average daily consumption of coal amounts to from 600 to 650 tons per 
day. All of the coal consumed here is fine coal, and at times the com¬ 
pany is unable to secure sufficient slack and then crushes the lump coal 
before it is used in the furnace. This coal comes mainly from the Hock¬ 
ing Valley and is purchased at a very low price. This is only one illustra¬ 
tion, though an excellent one, of the growing demand for* fine coal. In 
addition to this use of the fine coal, there is also that for cooking pur¬ 
poses. Not all coal, of course, is in demand for cooking purposes, but 
when this use is taken in addition to the other uses, they together 
constitute a large demand for fine coal. 


51 


It is not claimed, of course, by operators, miners or the Commission 
that the fine coal has the same value as the larger sizes, or that this 
increase in the use of the fine coal compensates entirely for the lowering 
of the value of the coal which, if the operators’ claim he true, would 
result from the adoption of the run-of-mine system. It may be regarded, 
however, as a mitigating circumstance, if it should turn out to be true 
that the adoption of a run-of-mine system had the effect of increasing 
the percentage of fine coal coming from the mine. 

3. The third objection of the operators to the mine-run system is 
that there would be a great increase in the amount of impurities mixed 
with the coal and brought out of the mine under such a system, which 
would greatly deteriorate the quality of the coal if it were sold on a 
mine-run basis and which would increase very much the cost of oper¬ 
ating the mine if the coal were cleaned before it was sold. 

In the minds of the members of this Commission, this is the strongest 
objection to the adoption of the mine-run system by law in Ohio, unless 
there can be included in the law ample safeguards for the operators. 

Our review in the early part of the Re])ort of the various seams of 
coal being mined in Ohio will show where this danger lies and the nature 
of the impurities. The impurities referred to include rock, slate, sul¬ 
phur, clay, black jack, etc. W'e also include under impurities, for the 
purpose of this discussion, the lower grades of coal, especially the 
“bone coal”, now left in the mine, which in the interest of conservation 
should be taken out of the mine, but which, if mixed with the superior 
grades of coal, would cause a deterioration of the product, compelling 
its sale at a much lower price. 

All parties agree that the place to remove these impurities is in the 
mine, at the working places. The rock, slate and clay should be thrown 
back, along the sides of the entries where they will not interfere with the 
haulage of the coal, and they should be so disposed in the working places 
as not to require handling twice. If they are taken out of the mine, 
they add to the expense of haulage, without any corresponding gain to 
the operator, and a man must then be hired on the outside to remove 
these impurities. All parties agree that it is not possible to remove all 
of the impurities in the coal inside of the mine. The smaller particles 
of dirt have become mixed with the fine coal and could not be removed 
without a tedious sorting by hand, which it is not practicable to do. 
Other portions of the dirt adhere to the coal or are found imbedded in the 
large lumps. If these impurities are of the nature of slate or sulphur 
bands of considerable size, it is the business of the miner to break the 
lump in order to remove them. If they are only thin partings, they are 
left in, for the coal would be depreciated more in value by removing 
them than by leaving them. 

Some of the impurities are hard to detect in the mine with only the 
faint light shed by the miner’s lamp. This is especially true of the in- 


0 


52 


ferior grades of coal, which in appearance resemble more or less the other 
coal. We do not mean to say that any considerable amount of this coal, 
or other impurities, need escape detection by a careful man who has 
had some little experience in a coal mine. If any considerable amount of 
impurities are loaded out, it can only have been done intentionally or 
through carelessness on the part of the miner. It is not, however, practi¬ 
cable, or even possible, to remove all the impurities in the mine. 

Even under the present system of mining coal, the amount of im¬ 
purities contained in the coal as it comes from the mine constitutes one 
of the most difficult and weighty problems in connection with the opera¬ 
tion of a coal mine. The operators feel obliged repeatedly to insist upon 
the loading of clean coal, for their customers are constantly complaining 
of the large percentage of impurities which they receive and are quick to 
turn their patronage to other companies or to other coals whenever 
they have reason to think they can secure a cleaner product in this way. 
On pages 1246-1253 of our typewritten testimony are samples of com¬ 
plaints which one large company, operating in the Hocking Valley, has 
received from its customers who complain of dirty coal. It is of course 
quite likely that companies operating in other states receiver similar let¬ 
ters ; for customers are liable to be unreasonable in their demands at times 
and to complain of that amount of impurities which could not have been 
avoided even by careful mining; these complaints show, nevertheless, 
how keen is the competition in the coal business and how far operating 
companies must go in their efforts to hold trade. 

No operating companies can rely entirely on the efforts made to 
clean the coal inside the mine. All of them adopt one device or another, 
after the coal has come from the mine, to have it put in marketable shape 
before it is shipped. 

% 

The plan that is most often followed, especially in Ohio, is what is 
known as “trimming"’. Several men, the number varying from one to 
six, stand on the sides of the railroad car and rake the coal with picks 
after it has been dumped and sort out the larger impurities which are 
detected in this way. This is not a very efficient method of removing 
impurities. In the first place, the mine cars are likely to be dumped in 
such quick succession that there is not an opportunity to go over the 
coal thoroughly. This is especially true if only one or two trimmers are 
employed on the car. In the second place, this plan is not successful in 
removing the smaller particles of dirt. No effort is made to do so; the 
process would be too tedious, and would interfere too much with the 
dumping of the coal. 

• A much better method is the use of the picking tables. These are 
long platforms, slowly revolving on an endless chain, on which the coal 
is dumped before it goes into the railroad car. Since it is sorted out 
on these tables, it is very much easier to discover the impurities, and 


53 


for this reason a much larger percentage of dirt is likely to be removed 
than by the process of trimming. The installation of picking tables in¬ 
creases the cost of operation, of course, and whether or not it is worth 
while depends largely on the uses for which the coal is intended and the 
higher price obtained for clean coal. Even this system does not enable 
the impurities in the fine coal to be removed. 

The only successful method for removing the impurities in the fine 
coal is by the process of washing. This may be applied to all the small 
sizes of coal. A coal washer is a highly complicated piece of mechanism 
and it costs a great deal to install it and to keep it in repair. The principle 
of washing is that the impurities have a different specific gravity than 
does the coal itself, and when the fine coal is placed in a current of water, 
flowing just strong enough to wash along with it the particles of coal, 
it will allow the impurities to sink to the bottom. Wherever washers are 
installed, the quality of the coal is thereby greatly improved and washed 
coal finds a more ready market and commands a higher price than un¬ 
washed coal. 

In Illinois, where the mines are operated on a mine-run system, the 
large companies have generally installed washers. They have also 
adopted devices for screening their coal into different sizes, which un¬ 
doubtedly makes the'coal more suitable to the varying market demands. 
Inasmuch, however, as the market demands for the different sizes do 
not always correspond to the variations in the sizes of the lumps as they 
come from the mine, the operator who has a demand for coal of one size 
oftentimes finds it difficult to dispose of the other sizes. 

The few washers which have been installed at Ohio mines have not, 
we are told, proved very successful from a commercial standpoint. 
Whether or not their use is unprofitable to the operators, we are unable 
to say, but nevertheless, with the Ohio coals paid for on a'screened-coal 
basis and sold in such a way as to suit the present market demands, not 
many operators have felt called upon to install washers, and some of the 
companies which have installed them no longer use them. 

Viewing the matter from the standpoint of the public, the Commis¬ 
sion feels compelled to say that Ohio operators might well go farther 
than most of them have gone to get clean coal, even under present com¬ 
petitive conditions. 

The miners claim that under a mine-run system of payment, they 
would clean their coal as well as they now clean it under the screened- 
coal system. They claim that it is always to the interest of the miner 
to bring out his coal in the best possible condition, and that the trained 
miner takes a pride in his work and therefore would be unwilling to 
load dirty coal. 

These same arguments were made before the former commission 
which sat on this subject, and they did not greatly impress that commis- 


54 




sion. Neither do they greatly im])ress the members of this Commission. 
It may be admitted that the majority of miners do endeavor to perform 
their labor in a workmanlike manner and that they would continue to do 
so, at least for a time, under a mine-run system of payment. The opera¬ 
tors themselves admit that this is true. 

The question arises, however, as to the work of the minority of 
miners and as to the effects of their work upon that of the larger number. 
A few men in any mine who were unwilling to take the trouble to cleaii 
the coal, and who believed that their careless work would not be de¬ 
tected, could by their dishonesty depreciate the value of the entire prod¬ 
uct of that mine. The miners admit that even under the present system 
there are men who do not perform their work in a proper manner, and 
that, unless restricted in some way, these men would shovel dirt in with 
their coal under a mine-run system. Several representatives of the miners 
who took part in the arguments before this Commission estimated that 
the number of men who would load dirty coal would constitute from lo 
to 14 per cent of the total men employed. 

If, under a mine-run system, the present incentives to get clean 
coal were removed, and if the loader were to be paid on everything 
which came out in his car, and if it be admitted that some men would 
take advantage of this situation to shovel the impurities in with their 
coal, thus succeeding in getting paid for a considerable percentage of 
dirt, would not other men employed in the mine be tempted to do the 
same thing? It seems to the members of this Commission that this 
temptation would exist, and that some men who are not tempted under 
the present system would yield to this temptation. Even if we are mis¬ 
taken in our opinions, this much remains true, that even 10 per cent 
of dirty loaders at a mine would make it difficult for operators to get 
their coal in marketable shape. 

The miners say that they do not demand pay for dirt, at least for 
that amount of dirt which could have been eliminated by careful loading 
and that if the operators desire to dump the mine car and take out the 
dirt before the coal is weighed, they are willing that this be done. 

The original Green bill, introduced at the last session of the Legis¬ 
lature, provided for weighing the coal in the mine car. This would 
have made it impossible to 'remove any considerable amount of the dirt 
before determining the pay of the miners. The unfairness to the 
operators and the possible disadvantageous effect upon the consumers 
of coal were so apparent that the bill in the course of its discussion 
in the two houses was amended with the consent of the author so as not 
to require payment in the mine car but to allow the impurities to be re¬ 
moved before the coal was weighed. 

The question, however, arises, 'how far is it practicable to secure 
clean coal by such a method? How is it ])ossible to clean the coal on 
the tipple before it is weighed and before the miner is credited with 


55 


the weight of his car if he is to l)e paid for his work on the mine-run 
l)asis ? If it were possible to do this and credit eacli miner with the 
total product of clean coal, this would be an equitable solution of the 
(hfficnlty, at least so far as the (piestion of clean coal enters into the 
controversy. Neither the miners nor the oj^erators, however, have been 
able to show us how this is to be done. 

Operators and miners who have worked under a mine-run system 
dilfer radically in their opinions as to the effect of a mine-run system 
upon the quality of the coal. The miners who appeared before this 
Commission were practically unanimous in stating that their experiences 
under a mine-run system in this and other states had demonstrated 
that the coal was as carefully mined and cleaned under such a system 
as under the screened-coal system generally prevalent throughout this 
state. The operators, on the other hand, were equally positive in stating 
that wherever the mine-run system had been applied, it had been found 
impossible to secure coal reasonably free from impurities and in a 
condition to be marketed. The operators called the attention of the 
Commission, as they did that of the Senate Committee on Mines and 
Mining at the last session of the Legislature, to the report of the State 
Geologist of Arkansas, as to .the harmful effect of the mine-run system 
in that state. 

The testimony of the operators in states operating on a mine-run 
system is generally un-favorable to that system, insofar as the quality 
of the coal is concerned; and the fact that in such states we found that 
such modern devices as picking tables and coal washers were in more 
general use than in Ohio probably tends to indicate not that the 
operators of those states are superior in business judgment to those 
in Ohio but that the mine-run system has made these devices necessary 
if the coal mined under such a system is to find a profitable market. 

In this connection, the Commission again relies to a considerable 
extent on the testimony of Mr. Harry Taylor, formerly president of 
the Illinois Coal Operators’ Association, who, as previously mentioned, 
operates mines not only in the states where the mine-run system of 
payment prevails, but also in Indiana where the double-standard system 
is in force. We feel that the miners may not properly question the 
candor and honesty of this gentleman’s statements, since his testimony 
was on the whole in favor o'f their contention that the coal would not 
be overshot where undercut if mines were operated on a mine-run basis, 
and they have placed great reliance on this testimony of a well-known 
operator in their arguments before the Commission. If his testimony 
is to be relkd on in reference to the fine-coal controversy, there is no 
reason to suppose that he is not equally lehahle when he states that 
under a mme-run system there is an increase in the amount of impurities 
mined with the coal. 


56 


Ill his testimony before the Commission (Proceedings, pages 3 ^ 5 " 
325), in answer to this question l)y the Chairman of the Commission, 

“Now do yon notice any difference in the miners — when they know 
they are loading rim-of-mine coal? Do they put any more impurities 
in with the run-of-mine than they do with the coal that is loaded lump?” 

Mr. Taylor replied, 

“In most mines where the men get paid for mine-run coal, they get 
everything out they can load on a shovel where they didn’t continue to 
do that when the product went through.the screen; that is, if a man were 
cleaning up his place, he cleaned it up just as clean as this floor because 
he gets paid for it if it is being weighed and paid for mine-run.” 

Later on, in speaking of the work under the double-standard system 
in Indiana, Mr. Taylor stated, in answer to this question: 

“Do you notice when you change, we’ll say from lump coal to run- 
pf-mine, the same day, that the miners will clean the coal better during 
the flrst half day, when they are mining lump coal, than they will the 
second half day?” 

“They don’t clean the coal any better, but they shovel the refuse 
of the rooms, that is, they load everything out that weighs anything.” 

•Concerning his experience in Illinois, he said, 

“Take in the long-wall mines of northern Illinois, where no powder 
is supposed to be used. The screenings up in those mines, they are 
loaded out where they were formerly left in the mines and they load 
up more clay with the screenings than they did before and by that way 
deteriorate the quality of the screenings. The screenings of northern 
Illinois coal have close to 30 per cent clay since the mine-run system 
went into effect; that is, the screenings that come from the screen when 
there is not a washer there, are so full of clay that they cannot be 
marketed in their natural condition; wash about from 30—20 to 30— 
per cent of impurities before they can be marketed, and that has been 
overcome by putting in coal washers to eliminate the impurities. You 
can’t pick out that stuff; you have to wash it out.” 

Q. What does it cost to wash the coal per ton, approximately? 

A. The flrst cost is thirty per cent of the raw material and the 
other then — the cost is regulated by the tonnage you put through the 
washer. 

Q. I don’t mean any particular case — the approximate cost, the 
average ? 

A. It varies, I * would say, from ten cents a ton to twenty cents 
a ton, according to the tonnage you can put in, over the overhead. 

Q. Operating costs? 

A. Yes. 

0 . That would be the interest on your investment? 

A. Yes, and thirty per cent of your raw material that is washed. 

5 j{ ^ ♦ 



57 


O. Now I ask, Mr. Taylor, since you are familiar with Hocking 
coal, what in your judgment-will be the effect on the Hocking coal if 
we go on the mine-run system, as to cleaning it? I do not mean clean¬ 
ing it from slack but cleaning it from these slates and impurities. 

A. There are two kinds of impurities in any bituminous coal, 
whether it is in the Hocking Valley or anywhere else. One is the 
slates and slips — clay slips and horsebacks — which exist to. a larger 
or less degree in every coal field in the country, and in certain mines 
in certain fields. In the same mines you will hit a piece of coal that has 
more of these kinds of impurities than any others, and that has to be 
handled, because if you don’t have a severe dock that really punishes 
the men, it is human nature for them to load it. I have seen them 
many a time take a large lump of coal with a band of sulphur an inch 
wide and take the trouble to take the black grease off of the car and 
cover that up, but when we detect a man of that kind the miners almost 
invariably sustain the company because it is so apparent an effort to 
cheat and with the same amount of labor he could have mined out the 
sulphur but they go to all that trouble to hide it rather than to put it 
through. Now these matters have to be handled by the dock, whether 
you are handling lump coal or mine-run. That particular case I cited 
would be lump coal — a lump possibly weighing 150 or 200 pounds — but 
the class of impurities that the mine-run system puts upon the operator is 
the bug dust (the clay in the bug dust), and the way the clay is cut and 
the amount of loose clay in the rooms that is cleaned up and put into 
the car and weighed and paid for and cleaned; the operator has to dis¬ 
pose of it and he not only is paying for something he cannot sell but 
it has deteriorated the rest of his product, that is, there is so much clay 
in his screenings that it makes it impossible to sell his screenings, and, 
since the introduction of the mine-run system in Illinois, in addition to 
the change in the method of screening the coal and the rebuilding of 
tipples and the new construction of tipples in'the new work here, washers 
have sprung up all over the state, to eliminate these finer impurities 
which go into the screenings, until today there is hardly a big operation 
in this state that hasn’t a washing plant to overcome and remove these 
finer impurities from their fine coals, that is, the bug dust and clays. 
As I tried to explain a while ago, the entire method of handling coal in 
Illinois has been changed and has adapted itself to this condition of 
mining; incidentally, too, the entire buying public and consuming public 
have changed their plants to take care of the product as it is now pro- • 
duced, until it has become so thoroughly established that whether we 
wanted to or whether we didn’t want to, we could not, until we re¬ 
educated our public over a long period of years, we could not go back 
to any other system. 

0 . ‘‘Where the machine cuts the finer clay, is the miner careless 
about loading that ?” 


58 


A. “Yes, whether the coal is cut low or high, why, the men will 
load everything that is loose in that room, where under the lump-coal 
system, they formerly left that in because it didn’t do them any good.” 

Q. “How did you dock them?” 

A. “You can’t dock them, you can’t catch them.” 

Q. “There is no way of catching a man on the run-of-mine system?” 

A. “Under that system you can’t catch that class.” 

Our conclusions are that the adoption of the mine-run system in 
Ohio would cause a considerable increase in the amount of impurities 
Drought to the surface, unless some way were found to protect the oper¬ 
ator from the carelessness or indifference of the miner. 

4. The fourth objection which the operators make to the mine-run 
system is that this would involve them in considerable expense in re¬ 
building and re-arranging their tipples. They have not placed a great 
deal of emphasis upon this matter in their testimony before the Com¬ 
mission and their objection is largely incidental to their discussion of 
the disadvantages of the mine-run-system in increasing the amount of 
hue coal and the amount of impurities. The expense of changing 
tipples would be insignificant if all the coal mined were to be sold on a 
mine-run basis; all that would be necessary to do would be to cover the 
screens and continue to dump the coal and clean it, insofar as cleaning 
was possible, by the'present method. The real expense would doubtless 
be that referred to by Mr. Taylor in his remarks which we have just 
cjuoted. In order to sell coal in their present markets, the operators of 
OhM, especially those operating in the No. 8 and No. 6 seams, would 
probably have to introduce the same mechanical devices for cleaning 
the coal, both the lump and fine coal, that have been installed in Illinois 
and elsewhere. This might not be wholly disadvantageous, especially 
to the buying public, but it is a factor which nevertheless must be taken 
into account in considering the effect upon the operator of a change to 
the mine-run system. 

i 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 

To what conclusions now has the Commission arrived as a result of 
its attempt to balance these arguments for and against a change in the 
present system of weighing coal and paying for the labor employed in 
mining and loading it? 

I. It is the belief of the Commission that the present mode of pay¬ 
ment by which the miners and loaders are paid on the basis of only a 
part of their saleable product is not an equitable one. We express no 
opinion as to the pro])er rate or amount of the wages of miners, but we 
consider that the method of measuring the amount of their payment is 
wrong. Doubtless the principle was correct at the time of its adojition. 
for at that time only that part of the coal which passed over the screen 


59 


was sold. Today it is all sold, and although, when the wage scale is 
fixed, this is taken into account, the assumption on which the rate of pa}- 
is fixed, viz. that a certain fixed percentage of the coal passes through the 
screen, is an assumption which does not correspond to the facts. For 
that reason the present system is responsil)le for inequalities in the pay 
given to miners for the same amount of work in different districts and 
in different mines in the same district and, to a slight extent, in different 
rooms in the same mine. 

Such a system is bound to cause discontent, especially when coupled 
with the fact that many miners actually believe that they are not being 
paid for any of the coal which passes through the screen. The contracts, 
it is true, make allowance for the fine coal, but only a very few of the 
men employed in the mines have anything directly to do with the making 
of such contracts. Many of the miners are new arrivals in this country 
and know nothing of the reasons which led to the making of a contract to 
pay for coal on a screened-coal basis. They only know that their pay is 
measured by the amount of coal which passes over the screen and yet 
they see carload after carload of fine coal being sold which has been pro¬ 
duced by their labor and for which they imagine they have received no 
pay whatever. In order to remove these inequalities and to allay 
discontent, we feel that the present method of l)asing the miners’ and 
loaders’ pay on the amount of screened-coal which they have produced 
should be abandoned. 

2 . When we turn to a consideration of the mine-run system of 
measuring the amount of payment, which is the system employed in many 
states and which is the system the miners desire to have adopted by law 
in Ohio, we encounter the operators’ objections to such a system, based 
on the notion that there would be a great increase in the amount of im¬ 
purities and fine coal sent out of the mine under ^uch a system. 

We are inclined to ^ive full weight to their objections insofar as they 
relate to a probable increase in the amount of impurities. The experience 
of other states, especially that of Illinois and Arkansas, shows these ob¬ 
jections to be real. If the mine-run system of payment is to be adopted 
by law, it should apply only to clean coal, i. e., coal cleaned in such a 
way that the operator is able to market it. 

We are also convinced that there would be a great increase in the 
amount of fine coal in solid-shooting mines, if the mine-run system were 
adopted, and for this reason and because it would reduce the number of 
accidents, we recommend that solid shooting be prohibited by law, except 
in those mines where it appears to be absolutely necessary to continue the 

practice. 

In those mines where the coal is undercut by pick or machine, and 
this includes not far from ninety-five per cent of all Ohio mines—we also 
believe that there would be some increase in the amount of fine coal. 


6 o 


Some of this increase would be warranted and would be in the interests of 
conservation. There would be an incentive for the miner to put in his 
mine car the fine coal which he is obliged by law to send out of the mine 
but which is now in part left underground because the miner realizes that 
under the present system he is not paid for this coal. It also seems prob¬ 
able that the miner would be more willing to draw thin pillars which, as 
we have said, contain more fine coal than is mined in the rooms, and 
that he would consent to work in certain portions of some mines where 
the coal is in a crushed condition and where he today refuses to work, 
because he claims he cannot earn a full day’s pay. 

As to whether or not the adoption of the mine-run system would 
cause miners to shoot their coal harder, even when the coal was under¬ 
cut, and thus would result in an increase in the amount of fine coal, we 
are unable to determine in light of the conflicting testimony which we 
have received on this point. It would appear to be the part of wisdom 
to provide safe-guards for the mine owners, which shall operate in case 
their fears in regard to this matter are realized, but the restrictions on 
the miners need not be so carefully defined nor enforced by the same 
penalties as in the case of the impurities. 

Accompanying this Report will be found the drafts of several sug¬ 
gested bills which cover the various recommendations made by this 
Commission. 

We also transmit herewith a copy of the Proceedings of the Com¬ 
mission and the testimony taken by it. 

We have the honor to remain. 

Yours very respectfully, 

THE OHIO COAL MIXING COMMISSION 

Phil M. Crow, Chairman, 

John C. Davies, 

J. M. Roan, 

Morris Albaugh, 

M. B. Hammond, Secretary. 





APPENDICES 


NUMBER ONE. 

A BILL 

To supplement section 936 of the General Code and to conserve the mineral re¬ 
sources of the state by requiring plans of proposed mining operations to be 

first submitted to The Industrial Commission for its approval. 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio: 

That section 936 of the General Code be supplemented bv the enact¬ 
ment of sections 936-1, 936-2, 936-3, 936-4. 936-5 and 936-6 to read as 
follows: 

Sec. 936-1. Every person engaged in the operation of a coal mine 
m this state shall cause the same to be operated by the double panel 
system, the single panel system, the long wall retreating system or the 
long wall advancing system or some such other system or combination or 
modification of such systems as: 

1. will result in he least ultimate waste and loss of the coal de¬ 
posits therein pnd will best conserve the same; 

2. will best protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of 
the persons employed therein; and 

3. will permit such mine to be operated at a fair and reasonable 
profit.' 

Sec. 936-2. The owner, lessee or agent of each mine, shall, semi¬ 
annually and in the same manner as required by the provisions of sec¬ 
tion 936 of the General Code, file with The Industrial Commission of 
Ohio, for its approval, duplicate copies of an accurate map on a scale of 
not more than two hundred feet to the inch, which map shall show clearly 
delineated thereon all the proposed excavations and workings which are 
to be made in such mine during the six months immediately succeeding 
the date of such filing. Such map shall bear endorsed thereon the cer¬ 
tificate of the engineer making the same and of the mine foreman in 
charge of such mine at the time of such filing, which certificate shall be 
acknowledged by such persons before a notary public in the following 
form: 

I.. mining engineer of ., here¬ 

by certify that this map is correct and shows all the excavations and workings 
which are proposed to be made in such mine during the six months beginning 


61 








62 


I, ., mine foreman of .. hereby 

certify that I have carefully examined this map and it correctly represents the 
excavations and workings which are proposed to be made in such mine during 
the six months beginning . 


The State of Ohio 
. County. 

Be it remembered that on this . day of .. 

19 ...., before me, a notary public in and for the county and state aforesaid, 

personally appeared the above named . and .. 

and acknowledged the signing by them of the above certificates to be their free 
and voluntary act. 



Notary Public. 

In the event that such proposed excavations and workings receive 
the approval of such Industrial Commission, that Commission shall make 
and enter on its records such an order as is just, reasonable and proper 
and shall cause such approval to be noted in writing on one of such 
copies of maps and shall forthwith return such copy to the person ,by 
whom the same was filed. From and after the taking effect of this act 
no owner, lessee or agent of any mine, shall cause or permit any work 
to be done or excavations to be made therein unless in carrying out the 
details of and in strict accordance with the proposed excavations or 
workings as shown on the map above provided for and as approved by 
such Industrial Commission. 

936-3. Whoever as owner, lessee, or agent, desires 'to open a new 
mine, shall, at least thirty days before beginning operations thereon, file 
with The Industrial Commission of Ohio, for its approval, duplicate 
copies of an accurate map on the scale provided for in the preceding sec¬ 
tion, showing the location of such proposed mine and also showing clearly 
delineated thereon all -the proposed excavations and workings which are 
to be made therein during the six months immediately succeeding the 
date of such filing. Such map shall bear endorsed thereon a certificate 
made by the same persons and of the same general form as that provided 
for on the map mentioned in the preceding section. In the event that 
such proposed location, excavations and workings receive the approval 
of The Industrial Commission, that Commission shall make and enter 
on its records such order as is just, reasonable and proper and shall 
cause such approval to be noted in writing on one of such copies of maps 
and shall forthwith return such copy to the persons by whom the same 
was filed. From and after the taking effect of this act no person shall 
cause or permit any new mine to be opened or any work to be done or 
excavation to be made thereui unless in carrying out the details of and in 
strict accordance with the proposed opening, excavations or workings, as 














63 

shown on the map provided for in this section and as approved by such 
Industrial Commission, 

• 

Sec. 936-4. In the the event that The Industrial Commission finds 
that the proposed opening, excavations or workings, as delineated on any 
such map filed under the provisions of sections 936-2 or 936-3 are not such 
as will accomplish the ends prescribed in section 936-1, it shall make 
and enter on its records such an order of disapproval in the premises as 
is just and reasonable. It shall also forthwith return the duplicate copies 
of maps provided for to the person by whom the same were filed and 
along with them furnish to such person a statement showing the changes 
which must be made in the plans for such proposed locations, excava- 
• tions or workings before the same will receive the' approval of the Com¬ 
mission; or, for the better information and guidance of the persons in¬ 
terested, the Commission may furnish along with such statement such a 
revised set of maps or plans to be use l in the operation of such mine as 
will in the opinion of the Commission best accomplish the purposes of 
this act. Until such changes have been made and maps showing such 
amended locations, excavations or workings filed and approved as pro¬ 
vided in said sections, no work shall be done or permitted to be done 
on any new location, excavation or working which did not theretofore ap¬ 
pear on some such map of said mine filed with and approved by such 
Commission. 

Sec. 936-5. When any owner, lessee or agent of a mine desires at 
any time to deviate from any plan of working the same which has been 
approved by the Industrial Commission as herein provided he may file 
a written application therefor with such Commission in which he shall 
specify clearly the location, nature and extent of such proposed deviation 
and thereupon such Commission, if it finds such deviation reasonable or 
necessary for the proper and profitable operation of such mine, shall make 
an order approving the same, which order shall be made and entered as 
other orders of such Commission and shall have the same force and effect 
as the other orders provided for in this act. 

Sec. 936-6. Whoever shall fail to comply with the provisions of the 
four preceding sections herein or shall alter any of such maps after the 
same have been approved by The Industrial Commission or shall cause 
or permit any workings or excavations to be made in any mine other than 
as shown on such maps and as approved by such Commission, unless 
such deviation from such approved ])lans shall first have been approved 
in the manner provided for in section 936-5, shall be guilty of a mis¬ 
demeanor and shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more 
than five hundred dollars, and each day a mine is oj^erated in violation 
of any of the provisions of the five preceding sections shall be considered 
as constituting a separate offense. 


64 


NUMBER TWO, 

¥ 

A BILL. 

A bill to amend sections 954, 965, 974-2 and 976 of the General Code, 
defining the duties of safety foremen of mines. 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio: 

Section i. That sections 954, 965, 974-2 and 976 of the General 
Code be amended to read as follows: . 

Sec. 954. The ozvner, lessee or agent of a mine employing more 
than ten men, zvhose duty is to mine and load coal, shall prozide a safety 
foreman, and each ozvner, lessee or agent, employing more than thirty- 
five such zvorkmen, shall, for each additional tzventy-fivc such men, pro¬ 
vide an additional safety foreman. Such safety foreman shall have had 
not less than fkve years' practical experience as a miner. He must be a 
citizen of the state, must have a knozvledge of all lazvs relating to the 
safety of the persons under his control and shall not hazfe charge of more 
than thirty-five at any one time. It shall be his duty to zisit all zv or king 
places under his charge each morning before the miners under him enter 
the same and as often thereafter as may be necessary to supervise the 
safety and care of each such zvorking place. When leazing at night he 
shall leave zvith the person or persons in charge of such mine all necessary 
and proper notices and instructions for the information, protection and 
safety of any night men zvho may be employed therein. He shall instruct 
and supervise proper timbering of each zvorking place and see that all 
loose coal, slate and rock, overhead in the working places and along the- 
haid ways, be removed or carefully secured so as to ^prevent danger in 
zvorking places and haulage zvays under his charge, and that sufficient 
props, caps and timbers are furnished as are prescribed by the mining 
lazvs. He shall instruct each inexperienced miner or loader committed 
to his care as to the particular dangers hicident to his zvork in such mine 
and furnish him a copy of the mining code of this state and the rules 
governing the operation of mines. Such safety foreman shall also super- 
z'ise the blasting in all places 'under his control in such manner as to 
promote safety and good zvorkmanship in the preparation of the coal. 
He shall perform all such duties, not inconsistent zmth those required 
of him as safety foreman, as he may be directed to do by the mine boss 
or mine foreman. He shall dezrote all of the time for zvhich he H em¬ 
ployed to the territory in zvhich the men under his control are employed, 
and shall not absent himself therefrom for over one hour at any one time 
unless he has first notified the mine boss or mine foreman of the necessity 
of his absence so that his place can be filled by a competent person. J 
shall haz’e the same pozver as a deputy mine inspector to arrest or prose¬ 
cute any person or persons disobeying any lazv or an'v order of the ’ 


6s 


industrial commission relative to the mining of coal. Nothing in the fore¬ 
going shall prohibit or prevent a mine boss, mine foreman or fire boss 
from fulfilling the duties of safety foreman. 

Sec. 965. Each person desiring to work by himself at mining or 
loading, shall first produce satisfactory evidence, in writing, to the mine 
foreman of the mine in which he is employed, or to be employed, that 
he has worked at least nine months with, under the direction of, or as 
a practical miner; provided, however, if the mine in which such person 
is to be employed generates explosive gas, or fire-damp, he shall have 
worked not less than twelve months with, under the direction of, or as a 
practical miner. Except as hereinafter provided, until a person has so 
satisfied the mine foreman of his competency, he shall not work, or be 
permitted to work at mining or loading unless accompanied by a com¬ 
petent miner. The provisions of this section shall not prohibit a person 
not so qualified from working in a mine by himself, or with another in¬ 
experienced person, when such person or persons work under the direc¬ 
tion of a competent * * safety foreman, as hereinafter prescribed. 

Until such person or persons have been employed in a mine for a period 
of not less than three months, the * * * safety foreman shall visit 

the working place of such persons not less frequently than once in each 
four hours that such persons are in the mine, and instruct them as to 
their work and safety, and assist them in caring for their safety. After 
such persons have been employed in a mine for a period of three months, 
and until they have been employed not less than six months, the * * * 

safety foreman shall examine the working place not less frequently than 
once during each six hours that such persons are in the mine, and shall 
instruct them as to their work and safety, and assist them in caring for 
their safety. After such persons have been employed in a mine for a 
period of not less than six months, the * * * safety foreman shall 

examine the working place not less than once each day until such persons 
become qualified by having worked the period of time hereinbefore pro¬ 
vided. The * * * safety foreman shall instruct such persons not 

to handle or use any explosive, except in his presence, until they have 
been employed in a mine not less than three months, and not then until 
he is satisfied that such persons are fully competent to handle and use 
same with safety. The * * safety foreman shall visit the work¬ 

ing place of such persons oftener than required herein, when, in his 
judgment, it is necessary to do so for the proper safety of such persons. 

Sec. 974-2. No person shall use in any mine any other illuminant 
than those provided for in sections 974 and 974-1 of the General Code, 
unless with the consent of the * * * industrial commission of Ohio. 

Sec. 976. Any county coroner who, after receiving notice of a fatal 
accident, or of an accident which has resulted in the death of a person, 
at, in, or around a mine, from the owner, lessee or agent of such mine, 
or the * * * industrial commission of Ohio, willfully refuses or 


♦5 


66 


neglects to comply, so far as such provisions relate to him, wuth the 
provisions of section 921 of the General Code, shall, upon conviction 
thereof, be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than fifty 
dollars, at the discretion of the court. 

Any owner, lessee or agent of a mine, or any person, firm or cor¬ 
poration opening a new mine, having * * * information in zvriting 

of a violation of this act, who willfully refuses or neglects to comply with 
the provisions of sections 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 

932,933.934,937.938,939.940,941.942,943.944.945.946,947.948, 

949, 950, or 971 of the General Code, shall, upon conviction thereof, be 
fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than fifty dollars, and 
for a second or any subsequent ofifense shall be fined not less than fifty 
dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, at the discretion of the court. 

Any superintendent, mine-foreman, foreman, safety foreman, or 
over-seer, who willfully refuses or neglects to comply, so far as such pro¬ 
visions relate to each of them with the provisions of sections 951, 952, 953, 
and 954 of the General Code, shall upon conviction thereof, be fined not 
less than ten dollars nor more than twenty-five dollars, and for a second 
or subsequent ofifense, shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more 
than twenty-five dollars, or imprisoned not less than ten days nor more 
than twenty days, or both, at the discretion of the court. 

Any person or persons who willfully refuse or neglect to comply 
with the provisions of section 955 of the General Code, or enters a mine 
generating fire-damp before it is reported by the fire boss that it is safe 
for persons to enter, or goes beyond a danger signal indicating an ac¬ 
cumulation of fire-damp, as forbidden Ijy the provisions of section 959 
of the General Code, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less 
than twenty-five dollars nor more than fifty dollars, and for a second or 
any subsequent ofifense shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars 
nor more than fifty dollars, or imprisoned not less than ten days nor 
more than twenty days, or both, at the discretion of the court. 

Any person, or persons, who violate the provisions of sections 956, 
957 ^ 958, 960, 961, or 962 of the General Code, or violate the pro¬ 
visions of section 959 of the General Code other than to enter a mine 
generating fire-damp before the fire boss reports it safe, or to go beyond 
a danger signal indicating an accumulation of fire-damp, shall, upon con¬ 
viction thereof, be fined not less than five dollars, nor more than ten 
dollars, and for a second or any subsequent ofifense shall be fined not less 
than five dollars, nor more than ten dollars, or imprisoned not less than 
five days nor more than ten days, or both, at the discretion of the court. 

Any person who willfully violates the provisions of sections 964, 965, 
966, 967, or 970 of the General Code, or v’olates the provisions of section 
959 of the General Code relating to loitering and intoxicants, at, in or 
around a mine, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than 
five dollars, nor more than ten dollars, and for a second or any subse- 


6 ; 


qiient offense shall be fined not less than five dollars nor more than ten 
dollars, or imprisoned not less than five days nor more than ten days 
or both, at the discretion of the court. 

Any person, firm or corporation who violates or willfully refuses 
or neglects to comply with the provisions of section 973 of the General 
Code, shall upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than one hundred 
dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, and for a second or 
any subsequent offense shall be fined not less than two hundred dollars 
and not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not less than 
thirty days nor more than six months, at the discretion of the court. 

Any person, firm or corporation who compounds, sells or offers fo 
sale to dealers any oil or paraffine wax; fish oil or any other illuminant 
whatever, other than those specifically provided for in sections 974 and 
P/4-1 of the General Code, unless with the consent and approval of the 
* * * industrial commission of Ohio, for illuminating purposes in 

any mine in this state contrary to the provisions of sections 974, p74-l, 
p/4-2 and 975 of the General Code, shall, upon conviction thereof, be 
fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars and 
for a second or any subsequent offense shall be fined not less than one 
hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars, or imprisoned not 
less than thirty days nor more than sixty days, or both, at the discretion 
of the court. 

Any person, firm or corporation who sells, or offers for sale to any 
employe of a mine for illuminating purposes in a mine any oil or paraffine 
wax, fish oil or any other illuminant, other than those specifically pro¬ 
vided for in sections 974 and 974-1 of the General Code unless with the 
consent and approval of the * * * industrial commission of Ohio 

contrary to the provisions of sections 974, 974-^, 974-^ 975 t^e 

General Code, shall upon conviction thereof, be fined not less than twenty- 
five dollars nor more than fifty dollars, and for a second or any subse¬ 
quent offense shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more 
than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than ten days nor more than 
twenty days, or both, at the discretion of the court. 

Any person who knowingly uses for illuminating purposes in a mine, 
any oil or paraffine wax, fish oil or any other illuminant whatever other 
than those specifically provided for in sections 974 and 974-1 of the Gen¬ 
eral Code, unless with the consent and approval of the * * * indus¬ 

trial commission of Ohio, contrary to the provisions of sections 974, 974-1, 
974-2, and 975 of the General Code, shall, upon conviction thereof, be 
fined not less than five dollars nor more than ten dollars, and for a second 
or any subsequent offense shall be fined not less than five dollars nor 
more than ten dollars, or imprisoned not less than five days nor more 
than ten'days, or both, at the discertion of the court. 

Section 2. That said original sections 954, 965, 974-2 and 976 of 
the General Code be and the same are hereby repealed. 


68 


NUMBER THREE. 

A BILL. 

To regulate and prohibit solid shooting in coal mines. 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio: 

Section i. Whoever being the owner, lessee or agent of a coal 
mine causes or permits any solid shooting to be done therein without 
having first obtained a permit to do so from the Industrial Commission 
of Ohio shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars. 

Section 2. A permit to do solid shooting may be issued by the 
Industrial Commission of Ohio in the case of any mine when application 
shall be made therefor by the owner, lessee or person engaged in the opera¬ 
tion thereof and by a majority of the miners employed therein, and when 
such Industrial Commission shall be satisfied that such method of blast¬ 
ing is necessary for the just and reasonably profitable operation of such 
mine. Such permit may be revoked at any time by said commission 
after sixty days notice in writing to such owner, lessee or person op¬ 
erating such mine. Any person in interest who is dissatisfied with any 
order of said Industrial Commission made under the power conferred 
upon it by this section, may commence an action to set aside, vacate or 
amend such order in the same manner and for the same reason as other 
orders of such Commission may be set aside, vacated or amended. 

Section 3. Each section of this act is hereby declared to be an 
independent section and the holding of any section to be void or in- 
efifective for any cause shall not be deemed to afifect any other section 
thereof. 


NUMBER FOUR. 

A BILL. 

To amend section 934 of the General Code, relative to emergency- 
supplies which are to be kept for use at the mines. 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio: 

Section i. That section 934 of the General Code be amended to 
read as follows: 

Sec. 934. The owner, lessee or agent of a mine at, in, or around 
which, more than ten persons are employed, shall * * * furnish for 

each thirty-five men so employed a properly constructed stretcher, * * * 
a woolen blanket, * * * a waterproof blanket, * * * ^ sufficient 
quantity of bandages and linen * * * and such other necessary 

requisites for use in case of accident as may from time to time he pre- 




69 


scribed by the Industrial Cornniission of Ohio. At mines generating’ fire- 
darnp so as to be detected by a safety lamp, a sufficient quantity of olive 
or linseed oil shall be kept * * * for use in emergencies. It shall be 
the duty of each safety foreman to keep in a safe and dry place in the 
territory over which he has charge such stretcher, zuoplen and water¬ 
proof blankets and other supplies. He shall care for the same and keep 
them in a dry and sanitary condition always ready for use. 

Section 2. That said original section 934 of the General Code be 
and the same is hereby repealed. 


NUMBER FIVE. 

A BILL. 

To regulate the weighing of coal at the mine. 

Sec. I. On and after the first day of October, 1914, every miner 
and every loader of coal in any mine in this state who under the terms 
of his employment is to be paid for mining or loading such coal on the 
basis of the ton or other weight shall be paid for such mining or loading 
according to the total weight of all such coal contained within the car 
(hereinafter referred to as mine car) in which the same shall have been 
removed out of the mine; provided, the contents of such car when so 
removed shall contain no greater percentage of slate, sulphur, rock, 
dirt, or other impurity than that ascertained and determined by the In¬ 
dustrial Commission of Ohio as hereinafter enacted. 

Sec. 2. Not later than the date set forth in section i hereof, and 
thereafter as hereinafter provided, said Industrial Commission shall ascer¬ 
tain and determine the percentage of slate, sulphur, rock, dirt, or other 
impurity unavoidable in the proper mining or loading of the contents 
of mine cars of coal in the several operating mines within this state. 

Sec. 3. On and after the date set forth in section i hereof it shall 
be the duty of such miner or loader of coal and his employer to agree 
upon and fix, for stipulated periods, the percentage of fine coal commonly 
known as nut, pea, dust and slack allowable in the output of the mine 
wherein such miner or loader is employed. 

At any time when there shall not be in effect such agreed and fixed 
percentage of fine coal allowable in the output of any mine said Indus¬ 
trial Commission shall forthwith upon request of such miner or loader or 
his employer, fix such allowable percentage of fine coal, which percentage 
so fixed by said Industrial Commission shall continue in force until other¬ 
wise agreed and fixed by such miner or loader and his employer. 

Whenever said Industrial Commission shall find that the total out¬ 
put of such fine coal at any mine for a period of one month during which 



70 


such mine shall have been operating while the percentage of fine coal so 
fixed by said Industrial Commission has been in force, exceeds the per¬ 
centage so fixed by it, said Industrial Commission shall at once make, 
enter and cause to be enforced such order or orders relative to the pro¬ 
duction of coal at such mine, as will result in reducing the percentage 
of such fine coal, to the amount so fixed by said Industrial Commission. 

Sec. 4. After the date set forth in section i of this act said Indus¬ 
trial Commission, shall, as to all coal mines in this state, which have not 
been in operation prior to said date, perform the duties imposed upon 
it by the provisions hereof. 

Sec. 5. Said Industrial Commission shall have full power from time 
to time, to change, upon investigation, any percentage by it ascertained 
and determined, or fixed, as provided in the preceding sections hereof. 

Sec. 6. It shall be unlawful for the employer of a miner or loader 
of the contents of any car of coal described in section i of this act, to 
pass any part of such contents over a screen or other device, for the 
purpose of ascertaining or calculating the amount to be paid such miner 
or loader for mining or loading such contents, whereby the total weight 
of such contents shall be reduced or diminished. 

Any person, firm or corporation violating the provisions of this sec¬ 
tion shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall 
be fined for each separate offense not less than three hundred dollars nor 
more than six hundred dollars. 

Sec. 7. A miner or loader of the contents of a mine car, containing 
a greater percentage of slate, sulphur, rock, dirt or other impurity, than 
that ascertained and determined by said Industrial Commission, as herein¬ 
above provided, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction 
shall be punished as follows: for the first offense within a period of three 
days he shall be fined fifty cents; for a second offense within such period 
of three days he sliall be fined one dollar; and for the third offense within 
such period of three days he shall be fined not less than two dollars nor 
more than four dollars. Provided, that nothing contained in this section 
shall affect the right of a miner or loader and his employer to agree 
upon deductions by the system known as docking, on account of such 
slate, sulphur, rock, dirt or other impurity. 



1 

t 

I 


f 









'■ -y* o’- 


^ 


# 







r.^- 


r* • 

o- 




^ D 

.J->^ 


i-^’i 




■>' W 


•T 


• / 





( . 



c. 




I' 








' , > . 




I 






'y 





*:. ■<. , 

1 -v ■ -•■ 
•. ^«s • \C 




:i 


•>-. r 


» 










< 



,•. ii 






i' ■ , V 

■ W. ' 









r 


V. 






7 




y'' 





' -.I' 


V '.'i 

■’j 

.-.1 



■*' Id 


